1977 P Cr (PLP)

S. 257‑Witness, cross‑examination of‑A valuable right of accused‑‑Petition of accused under S. 257, Cr. P. C. dismissed on grounds that accused himself examined prosecution witnesses and Wit petition as such being vexatious and dilatory‑Putting few questions' to witnesses by accused himself, held, could not be termed as cross examination‑Petition, however, submitted before accused entered upon his defence‑Held: Premature and dismissed, leaving petitioner to submit a fresh petition.‑[Witness]. Rashid Aziz Khan for Petitioner Maqbool Hussain Shah for the State. Date of hearing : 26th March 1976. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Magis trate Section 30, Sahiwal, dated 3‑6‑1975, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition of Muhammad Hanif filed under section 257, Cr. P. C., for summoning Fateh Muhammad, Bashir and Sardar Muhammad P. Ws., for the purposes of cross‑examination. It was maintained by the petitioner that he had engaged a counsel, but the counsel was not present on 18‑4‑1975 and 8‑5‑1975, when the statements of Fateh Muhammad, Bashir Ahmad and Sardar Muhammad were recorded; that he submitted an application under section 257, Cr. P. C., on 24‑5‑1975, for re‑summoning the aforesaid three witnesses for the purposes of cross‑examination by the counsel, but his application was rejected on 3‑6‑1975; and that his case had been badly prejudiced for want of cross‑examination by his counsel. 2. I have gone through the record. The case was registered on 8‑1‑1974, although the occurrence had taken place in the month of June, 1973. Challan was submitted in Court on 28‑11‑1974. Statements of Fateh Muhammad and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. were recorded on 18‑4‑1975, while that of Sardar Muhammad on 8‑5‑1975. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on the aforesaid dates and thus, the petitioner was constrained to put few questions to the prosecution witnesses. An application was submitted under section 257, Cr. P. C., on 24‑5‑1975, for re-summoning the aforesaid witnesses for cross‑examination by the counsel. This petition was dismissed on 3‑6‑1975, on the grounds that the accused himself had cross‑examined all the three witnesses at length and that the petition was vexatious, and would cause delay and defeat the ends of justice. 3. Truth can only be elicited from the prosecution witnesses by cross examination. It is a valuable right of the accused. Art of cross‑examination is very difficult and it takes pretty long time to learn it. An accused is never conversant with the art of cross‑examination and he cannot properly cross‑examine the witnesses. Putting few questions to the witnesses by the accused himself could not be termed to be cross‑examination in the real sense of the word. In the instant case, the observation of the learned Magistrate that the accused himself had cross‑examined all the three witnesses at length, is not correct. Few questions had been put to the witnesses by the accused. The view of the learned Magistrate that the application was vexatious and the delay would defeat the ends of justice, is erroneous and not born out from the record. As mentioned earlier, challan was submitted in Court on 28‑11‑1974 and the petitioner was summoned for 17‑12‑1974. The petitioner appeared in Court on 14‑2‑1975 and the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. were supplied to him on the said date and the evidence summoned. Two witnesses appeared on 18‑4‑1975, one on 8‑5‑1975, and one on 26‑5‑1975. The interim order would show that the accused had been appearing throughout and he did not remain absent even on one occasion. The delay bad occurred in the registration of the case, in the submission of the challan and in producing the prosecution evidence. The petitioner did not contribute towards the delay. The petition submitted by the petitioner under section 257, Cr. P. C. was pre mature. He could submit the petition under section 257, Cr. P. C. after he had entered upon his defence. When the petition was submitted, the defence stage had not yet arrived. The prosecution evidence was being recorded. The learned Magistrate kept the petition pending till 3‑6‑1975, when the charge was framed and the statement of the accused petitioner recorded. The learned Magistrate should have decided the petition within a reasonable time of the filing of the petition. Since the petition was pre mature and had been filed when the stage had not yet arrived, I hold that the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order and I dismiss the revision petition. Now the case has entered the defence stage. It shall be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh petition under section 257, Cr. P. C., for re‑summoning the aforesaid three witnesses and the learned Magistrate shall dispose of his petition in accordance wit law keeping in view that few questions put by the accused petitioner could not be said to be a cross‑examination in the real sense of the word and also that the accused was not responsible for the delay in the proceedings. Petition dismissed.