Rana FAZAL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE and another
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Layyah, which closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted too harshly in closing the right of cross-examination when the petitioner's counsel refused to proceed because a key recovery witness (P.W.4) was absent, fearing that cross-examining other witnesses first would reveal the defense strategy to the absent witness. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's order was indeed harsh and improper. The Court reasoned that the trial judge should have either initiated proceedings against the absent witness for non-appearance or allowed the prosecution to give up that witness, rather than penalizing the accused. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the trial court was directed to grant the petitioner at least one further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The key principle established is that a trial court must ensure the fair administration of justice by managing witness attendance through appropriate legal measures, such as issuing warrants, rather than summarily closing the right of cross-examination due to witness absence.
- Can a trial court close the right of cross-examination solely because a witness is absent and the defense refuses to examine other witnesses first?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a trial court when a bound-down witness fails to appear for cross-examination?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to issue warrants to compel the attendance of witnesses who fail to appear?
ORDER
1. '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.
2. 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.S.And P.W.6 if they are along with other relevant witnesses are 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.