2010 PLP 959 (YLR)
Rana FAZAL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 959 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mansoor Akbar Kokab and Javed Tariq, JJ |
| Parties | Rana FAZAL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 959 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 959 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mansoor Akbar Kokab and Javed Tariq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 959 (YLR) (Rana FAZAL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Khan for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(b)
Petitioner was aggrieved of order of the Trial Court, whereby the right of cross-examining the witnesses, already bound by the court to appear in person, was closed on the ground that one witness, was absent on the day
Matter was pending before the Trial Court and in case the notice was issued to the State, the case would be lingered on as order made by the Trial Court appeared somewhat harsh; because either the said witness who was already bound down should have proceeded against for non-appearance or might have been given up by the prosecution in order to get recorded the remaining witnesses
Petition was accepted with the direction to the Trial Court that at least one opportunity be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness, if they along with other relevant witnesses were present
If the other witnesses were not made present, despite services of notices, appropriate steps betaken against them for presence before the court including issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 5-1-2010 of learned Sessions Judge, Layyah whereby the right of cross-examining the witnesses, already bound by the Court by virtue of a previous order to appear in person, was closed on the ground that as one witness P.W.4 was absent on the day and the learned counsel of the petitioner did not accede the direction of the learned Court to cross-examine the rest of the witnesses on the ground that the cross-examination made to other witnesses would be disclosed for P.W.4 Muhammad Akhtar Hussain, the recovery witness. As the matter is pending before learned Sessions Judge for disposal of the trial and in case.the notice is issued to the State, the case would be lingered on as patently order made by the learned Sessions Judge appears somewhat harsh because either the said witness who was already bound down should have been proceeded against for non-appearance or might have been given up by the prosecution in order to get recorded the remaining witnesses i.e. P.W.5 and P.W.6. In the circumstances, the criminal revision is accepted with the direction to the learned Sessions Judge that at least one opportunity be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the present witness i.e. P.W.4 including P.W.5 and P.W.6 if they are along with other relevant witnesses ate present and in case the P.W.4 or other witnesses are not made present in spite of services of notices, some appropriate steps be taken against them for presence before the Court including issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants Disposed of. H.B.T./F-5/L Order accordingly.