ZARIF KHAN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order permitting a private counsel to cross-examine a defence witness under the supervision and direction of the Special Public Prosecutor. The core legal question was whether a private counsel assisting the prosecution could cross-examine a defence witness (an accused person appearing as his own witness) when acting under the directions of the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. The Supreme Court held that a private pleader can examine or cross-examine a witness under the directions of the Public Prosecutor who remains in charge of the case, and that the courts below acted neither illegally nor improperly in permitting such cross-examination. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the view taken by the lower forums.
- Whether a private counsel can cross-examine a defence witness under the directions of the Public Prosecutor?
- Does the Public Prosecutor remain in charge of the case when a private pleader assists in examining or cross-examining witnesses?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--One of the accused persons, Zarb Khan, offered to appear as a witness in his own defence. After the conclusion of his statement the complainant's counsel wished to cross- examine him. The learned Special Public Prosecutor permitted the complainant's counsel to do so and he was duly cross-examine by him. Subsequently, an objection was raised that a private counsel could not have cross-examined the D.W. (Zarif Khan accused). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, overruled this objection observing that as the complainant's counsel was acting under the supervision and directions of the Public Prosecutor, who was the incharge of the case, he could with his permission examine or cross-examine the accused. This order of the Additional Session: Judge was challenged by a revision before the High Court and learned Single Judge of the said learned Court after elaborately discussing the question held that although the Public Prosecutor always, remains incharge of the case, a private pleader can examine or cross examine the witness under his directions. He further held that in this case the cross-examination was made under the supervision of the Special Public Prosecutor who was present in Court throughout. He added that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acted neither illegally nor improperly in allowing the counsel of the complainant to cross-examine the D.W. The revision petition was dismissed on this view of the matter. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we agree with the view taken by the Courts below on the question in issue and no interference with their orders is called for.
3. The petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.