1987 PLP 1353 (SCMR)
ZARIF KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1353 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S. 493‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Examination of defence witness/accused by complainant's private counsel‑‑Effect of‑‑Accused appearing as defence witness in his own case was cross‑examined by complainant's counsel with permission of Public Prosecutor‑‑‑ Objection raised that private counsel could not cross-examine defence witness‑‑Complainant's counsel acting under supervision and directions of Public Prosecutor who was incharge of case, held, could examine or cross‑examine defence witness/ accused‑ Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.‑‑Witness. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ZARIF KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1353 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1353 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S. 493‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Examination of defence witness/accused by complainant's private counsel‑‑Effect of‑‑Accused appearing as defence witness in his own case was cross‑examined by complainant's counsel with permission of Public Prosecutor‑‑‑ Objection raised that private counsel could not cross-examine defence witness‑‑Complainant's counsel acting under supervision and directions of Public Prosecutor who was incharge of case, held, could examine or cross‑examine defence witness/ accused‑ Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.‑‑Witness. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1353 (SCMR) (ZARIF KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑2‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No.31 of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 493‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Examination of defence witness/accused by complainant's private counsel‑‑Effect of‑‑Accused appearing as defence witness in his own case was cross‑examined by complainant's counsel with permission of Public Prosecutor‑‑‑ Objection raised that private counsel could not cross-examine defence witness‑‑Complainant's counsel acting under supervision and directions of Public Prosecutor who was incharge of case, held, could examine or cross‑examine defence witness/ accused‑ Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Witness]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑One of the accused persons, Zarb Khan, offered to appear as a witness in his own defence. After the conclusion of his statement the complainant's counsel wished to cross‑examine him. The learned Special Public Prosecutor permitted the complainant's counsel to do so and he was duly cross‑examine by him. Subsequently, an objection was raised that a private counsel could not have cross‑examined the D.W. (Zarif Khan accused). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, overruled this objection observing that as the complainant's counsel was acting under the supervision and directions of the Public Prosecutor, who was the incharge of the case, he could with his permission examine or cross‑examine the accused. This order of the Additional Session: Judge was challenged by a revision before the High Court and learned Single Judge of the said learned Court after elaborately discussing the question held that although the Public Prosecutor always, remains incharge of the case, a private pleader can examine or cross examine the witness under his directions. He further held that in this case the cross‑examination was made under the supervision of the Special Public Prosecutor who was present in Court throughout. He added that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acted neither illegally nor improperly in allowing the counsel of the complainant to cross‑examine the D.W. The revision petition was dismissed on this view of the matter. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid order of the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we agree with the view taken by the Courts below on the question in issue and no interference with their orders is called for. The petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. M.I./Z‑8/S Petition dismissed.