AKRAM vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, primarily on the ground that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in summarily rejecting, with a single-word order, the appellant's application to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after a change in legal counsel. The High Court held that the trial court's summary dismissal of the application without providing any reasoning violated the principles of due process and the right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the right to be defended is a fundamental entitlement, now explicitly recognized under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to re-decide the application for recalling witnesses in accordance with the law, specifically under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and ordered the matter to be reassigned to a different judge.
- Does a trial court's summary rejection of an application to recall witnesses without providing reasons violate the right to a fair trial?
- Is a trial court required to provide reasons when dismissing an application filed under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan mandate that judicial orders denying defense requests must be reasoned?
- Article 10-A, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. 'AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case before the trial Court prosecution has examined four witnesses out of these four witnesses only one witness, who was complainant namely ASI Mukhtar Ali was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, whereas, other three witnesses were not cross-examined by the counsel and per learned counsel fair opportunity was not extended to the appellant by the trial Court as when the learned counsel filed Vakalalnama on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court and moved an application for recalling the P.Ws for cross-examination by the counsel, such application was dismissed by only one word "Rejected". This application was dismissed instantly on the same date and thereafter the learned trial Court proceeded with the case and convicted the appellant on 18-8-2014 through judgment impugned in this appeal.
2. ' Learned A.P.C. Fairly submitted that the learned trial Court at least should, have given some reasoning for dismissal of application filed on behalf of the appellant.
3. 'I have perused the order dated 12-8-2014 passed on application of the appellant before the trial Court. This application was dismissed as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant by one word. The due process of law and fair opportunity of being defended is might of every accused of any offence. Now under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, this right has been recognized even if learned trial Court thought that the application moved by the accused cannot be granted for any reason, such reason should have been incorporated in the order.
4. Dismissal of such application by single word cannot be appreciated.
5. ' In view of above impugned judgment dated 18-8-2014 is set aside and case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction that the trial Court should decide application of the accused filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. For recalling the P.Ws. For cross-examination by the advocate strictly in accordance with law. District Judge, Karachi East is directed to assign this case to some District Judge other than the learned Judge who has passed Order dated 12-8-2014 on the above referred application.
6. ' This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.