2020 PLP 594 (MLD)

RAJA SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

This revision petition has been addressed against an order passed by Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Barnala dated 29.11.2018, whereby right of cross-examination of petitioners was closed.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the accused-petitioners are facing trial before Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Barnala in a case vide FIR No.98/2018 registered against them at Police Station Barnala, in offences under Sections 324, 337-A(6) 337-F(1), 34, A.P.C. The case was at the verge of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, when the right of cross-examination of accused petitioners on prosecution witnesses No.3 was closed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2018, hence, this revision petition.

3. Ch. Kabeer Ahmad Hashim, the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds already mentioned in the revision petition and submitted that due to closing of right of cross-examination on above witnesses, the petitioners suffered irreparable loss, therefore, by accepting the revision petition impugned order may be set aside and an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses be granted to them in the interest of justice. PLD 1997 Lahore 26 and 1997 MLD 1358.

4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State, vigorously argued that counsel for accused petitioner was afforded much more opportunities for cross-examining the above stated witnesses but he failed to do so and the trial Court rightly closed the right of cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses. He finally prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General and have gone through the record of the case with due care.

6. A perusal of record reveals that accused/petitioners are facing trial in offences under sections 324, 337A-6, 337A-1 and 34, A.P.C. before Tehsil Criminal Court Barnala. On 29.11.2018 prosecution witness No.3 appeared before trial Court on summons. The examination in chief of the aforesaid witness was recorded but despite repeated calls counsel for the accused/petitioners did not appear before the trial Court and made request through clerk for adjournment which was refused and thereafter counsel appeared before the Court insisted for adjournment and refused to cross-examine upon the P.W. The learned trial Court directed that adjournment will be granted on payment of cost Rs.1000/- but the counsel refused and misbehaved with the Court. After that, the learned trial Court closed the right of cross-examination as counsel for accused was afforded as many as five (5) opportunities for recording the evidence of the aforementioned P.W. and also directed the Reader to file a complaint under section 228, A.P.C. against the counsel.

7. It may be mentioned here that it has been repeatedly held that advocates are officers of the courts and courts expect from them to help the courts to do justice between the litigant public in accordance with law. This role of advocates upholds the dignity and purity of the Courts. The advocates are duty bound to appear before the Court when it takes up the case of accused pending before it and they are not expected to remain absent without information of the court or showing of sufficient or reasonable cause. An advocate should always show respect towards the Court and appear in the court with the dignity and maintain the respect of judicial officer.

8. In the case in hand attitude of the counsel for the accused before trial court is unbecoming and regrettable, which is not permissible. The trial Court or presiding officer has to regulate court proceedings itself and not to play in the hands of unscrupulous litigants rather to be at the mercy of the accused or his counsel, if such practice, adopted in the instant case before learned trial Court, is allowed to be un-checked it would become a precedent and would also be a step to lower the dignity, honour and command of the Court, which a court enjoys.

9. In the instant case, an opportunity of cross-examination was not availed by counsel of accused-petitioners and when a party or his counsel failed to avail the opportunity of cross-examination or refused the same, normally this Court would refuse to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that negligence on the part of advocate was binding upon a party which had engaged the advocate. If a party engaged a counsel who has lacking sense of responsibility to the Court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side, however, the observation of the trial Court that five opportunities were provided to the counsel for petitioner for recording the statement of P.W.3, is incorrect. So, in the interest of justice, in my considered view only one and final opportunity should be provided to the accused/petitioners for cross-examination on prosecution witness No.3. In view of above, the revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 29.11.2018 is hereby set-aside and learned Tehsil Criminal Court Barnala is directed to provide one and final opportunity to the accused/petitioners for cross-examination upon P.W.3 and if they failed to do so, the impugned order shall be deemed intact. SA/64/HC(AJK) Petition accepted.