2002 PLP 477 (MLD)

'

2. The applicant is facing trial in case F.I.R. No.18 of 1997 registered on 12‑1‑1997 at . Police Station, Abdul Hakeem District Khanewal under sections 419/420/409/468/471, P.P.C. before the learned Special Judge (Central) Multan. The learned trial Court recorded the statements of two witnesses namely, Muhammad Masood Akbar and Muhammad Ajmal P.Ws.I and 2 on 9‑10‑1999. A perusal of the said order shows that on that day ,the Applicant was not represented by any counsel and had stated before the learned trial Court that his application for quashment of proceedings had been filed in this Court on 23‑9‑1999. As the stay was not granted by this Court, therefore, the learned trial Court recorded the statement of the abovementioned two available witnesses.

3. An application was moved under section 540, Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws. 1 and 2 so that they can be cross‑examined by the counsel for the applicant. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and according to para. 5 of the impugned order, the applicant had previously engaged three counsel and although none of the counsel represented the applicant on the date of recording of evidence yet, applicant was given full opportunity to cross‑examined the two P. Ws. himself

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5. It has been noticed that the accused was not represented on 9‑10‑1999 by any counsel and after the recording of evidence of P. W .1, the accused was asked to cross‑examine the witnesses himself. He could put only two questions .to P.W.1 and none to P. W.2. It has also been noticed that the learned trial Court did not put a single question to both the P.Ws. in order to ascertain the truth.

6. The cross‑examination is the most valuable right of the accused and is the only vehicle through which the veracity of a witness can be tested. Needless to say that cross‑examination is a specialized art which can be practised only by an expert. The trial Court has also failed to cross‑examine the witnesses itself. By giving an opportunity to accused to cross‑examine the P.Ws. himself would be against the interest of justice. In my views I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ (i) Malik Muhammad Anwar v. The State (PLD 1991 Karachi 351). (ii) Muhammad Fazil `Khan v. Mst. Amir Jan (1991 PCr.LJ 1849). (iii) Altaf Hussain Shamim v. The State (PLD 1992 Kar. 91). (iv) Sajjad alias Shahzad and others v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1872).

7. The learned State Counsel has also conceded that cross- examination was a valuable right of accused and he should have been cross‑examined by an expert and not by a lay person. However, he submits that the applicant‑accused should be given only one opportunity for the purposes of cross‑examination of the abovementioned two witnesses and on the date fixed the applicant should not be allowed by any adjournment. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if the witnesses are recalled, then on the date fixed, learned counsel for the petitioner would be available and cross‑examine the P. Ws.

8. In the light of the abovementioned circumstances, 1 set aside l the impugned order, 7‑2‑2000 passed by learned Special Judge (Central) Multan and allow the application of the petitioner for recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purposes of cross‑examination. The learned trial Court is, therefore, directed to recall the P. Ws.1 and 2 so that they may be cross‑examined. However, in case the P.Ws. are not cross‑examined on that day, no further adjournment would be given in this behalf.

9. With the above observations, this criminal revision is accepted. H.B.T./N‑142/L Revision accepted.