GHULAM ABBAS vs STATE and another
This criminal matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karor, which forfeited the appellant's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a case involving the possession of contraband under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted correctly in closing the right of cross-examination due to the repeated non-availability of the defense counsel. The High Court held that while the right to cross-examine is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it is not absolute and cannot be held in abeyance at the accused's convenience. The court affirmed that an accused must avail of opportunities provided for defense and that counsel has a statutory duty to be present. However, considering the nature of the charge and the potential severity of the consequences, the court exercised its discretion to grant the appellant one final, solitary opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The principle laid down is that while the right to cross-examination is vital, it is subject to the diligent conduct of the defense and the court's authority to manage proceedings.
- Can a trial court forfeit the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the repeated absence of defense counsel?
- Is the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses an absolute right that cannot be curtailed by the trial court?
- Does a fair trial require that an accused be given unlimited opportunities to cross-examine witnesses?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. Appellant is contesting indictment before learned Additional Sessions Judge at Karor; he was allegedly found in possession of some contraband attracting mischief of Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide Crime Report No.330 dated 7.8.2016 registered with Police Station Fatehpur , District Layyah; he claimed trial pursuant whereto prosecution evidence was summoned; as some of the witnesses were examined-in-chief, however , on account of non-availability of defence counsel on a number of dates learned trial Court ultimately proceeded to forefeit appellant's right to cross - examine the witnesses; reasons cited in the impugned order are sound and logical; no doubt right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is most important right of an accused, certainly it goes without saying that an accused is entitled to a fair trial which presupposes reasonable opportunity to defend himself, nonetheless, once an opportunity is afforded to the accused it becomes incumbent upon him to avail it and he cannot hold in abeyance his response to point of time of his own choice. Similarly , it is a statutory duty cast upon a counsel to remain in attendance in order to provide services to his client paymaster; both are subservient to law and in this backdrop, step taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be excepted to, however , given the charge and possible consequ ences concomitant therewith, it would be expedient to allow solitary opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Disposed of.