ZAHEER ABBAS vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Drug Court Multan, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was dismissed and costs were imposed. The core legal question revolves around whether the right to cross-examine a prosecution witness can be exercised arbitrarily without offering any cogent reasons for failing to do so at the relevant time. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that while cross-examination is a valuable right of an accused person, it cannot be misused or treated as a matter of absolute choice without explanation. The court established that an accused must provide valid reasons or show that circumstances were beyond their control when seeking to recall a witness under Section 540, Cr.P.C., and failing to do so justifies the trial court in proceeding with the case.
- Whether the right to cross-examine a witness can be exercised at any arbitrary choice of the accused without explanation?
- Can an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained without disclosing cogent reasons for failing to cross-examine a witness at the relevant time?
- Is a trial court justified in proceeding to the next stage of a case when the accused fails to avail the opportunity to cross-examine a witness?
- Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 23, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27, Drugs Act 1976
ORDER
' Application moved by the petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. In the learned Drug Court Multan in case No,490/2001 under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 was dismissed vide order, dated 20-9-2007 and costs amounting to Rs,1,200 (one thousand and two hundred) was also imposed on the petitioner vide order, dated 21-9-2006. Both the orders have been impugned through this revision.
2. Arguments, however, were addressed only in respect of application under section 540, Cr.P.C, It was contended that right to cross-examine the witness (P.W.3) was closed by the learned trial Court without any legal justification. This exercise of jurisdiction arbitrarily was going to result in miscarriage of justice and would cause loss beyond repair to the petitioner. Petitioner had the right to cross-examine the P. Ws. And this right could not be taken away. Reliance was placed on 1997 PCr.LJ 628, 2007 PCr.LJ 905 and PLD 2001 Lah.
463.
3. Of course cross-examination is a very valuable right particularly of accused. However, recognition of this right as such is not to be misused. To invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner must have established some legal ground. A look through application moved by petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. Would show that he was hovering under the impression that perhaps it was his choice to exercise the right of cross-examination as and when he wanted and he was not required even to explain as to why he did not cross-examine when he was required to do so. This was a misconception. The petitioner must have come up with cogent reason as to why he could not cross-examine the witness at relevant time. Copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court or proceedings of recording of evidence have not been placed on record by the petitioner. It is not case of the petitioner that he was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; Uncertified copy of the application moved by the petitioner does not disclose any reason as to why P.W.3 was not cross-examined by the petitioner or his counsel. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to make out a case that he could not cross-examine the witness for any reason beyond his control or any lapse was committed by the learned trial Court in not allowing him to cross-examine. Without mentioning any ;eason he moved the application on the sole ground that cross-examination was the most valuable right of the accused.
4. If the petitioner himself did not bother about the value of this right, the learned trial. Court obviously was not left with any option but to move on to the next stage of the case to ensure its disposal.
5. For the above mentioned reasons the facts of this case are distinguishable than those involved in the referred cases. This petition is held to be without any force, hence, is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 4 cases
- Faisal Rafique vs Saeed Mumtaz Durrani and 2 others 2021 P Cr. L J 1558
- Faisal Rafique vs Saeed Mumtaz Durrani, etc 2021 [M] C L R 882
- Abdul Qaseem vs 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (Central), Karachi and 2 others 2021 YLR 2427
- DILDAR vs The STATE 2016 YLR 546