ABDUL MAJEED KHAN Versus AZIZUDDIN

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J. ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 15‑12‑1987 dismissing a revision application filed by petitioner which was directed against the order of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, (Provincial), Karachi dated 23‑9‑1987 refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to cross‑examine a prosecution witness m a direct complaint case filed by him.

2. It is relevant to re‑produce the order of the learned Special Judge dated 23‑9‑1987 which reads as under:‑‑

3. "Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

4. P.W. Muhammad Ibrahim was examined as prosecution witness by the counsel for the complainant. Under the circumstances, the counsel for the complainant cannot be allowed to cross‑examine his own witness. The application appears to be misconceived and the same is accordingly rejected."

5. Learned Judge in the High Court upheld this order in these words:‑‑

6. "I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. The case against respondents started on a direct complaint which was filed in the year 1981. The entire evidence is over, and the case is fixed for judgment. Witness Muhammad Ibrahim was a witness examined by the complainant and certain documents were produced through him, and therefore, the other side/accused had a right to cross‑examine him. There was no reason for the applicant to again request for recalling P.W Muhammad Ibrahim on the ground that he was to be cross‑examined in , respect of the particular document. For all purposes he was a witness of complainant and if the learned counsel appearing for the complainant wanted to cross‑examine him he could make request to the Court at that time which according to me was misconceived inasmuch as the witness was neither declared hostile nor he had given any evidence with regard to the factual aspect of the case. The application appears to be mala fide and has been filed only with a view to protract the proceedings. The application is therefore dismissed in limine."

7. After having heard the learned counsel in support of the petition we find that no exception can be taken with the impugned judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court on merits or in law. Learned Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that for all purposes P.W. Muhammad Ibrahim was petitioner's own witness, and if he wished to cross‑examine him, he should have firstly declared him hostile when he gave his evidence in Court for the first time, and B then sought permission to cross‑examine hum. This mandatory course not having been complied with, it was not open to the petitioner to request for summoning the said witness afterwards in order to cross‑examine him. The application filed by the petitioner as rightly observed by the learned Judge in the High Court "appears to be mala fide" and having been filed "with a view to protract the proceedings".

8. There is thus no merit in this petition and. it is dismissed.

9. M.Y.H./A‑348/S Petition dismissed.