Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 133 ,

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 133---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chap. 24, Part C, R. 1---Closing of right of cross-examination---Effect---Accused was charged for committing rape with complainant---During the course of trial, examination-inchief of two prosecution witnesses were recorded---Several opportunities were provided to petitioner (accused) to cross-examine the said witnesses but upon his failure, his right to cross-examine was struck off---Validity---Right of crossexamination was a statutory right recognized and provided under Art. 133, Qanune-Shahadat, 1984---In a criminal case, it was obligatory upon the court to fulfill such statutory requirement in its true spirit---Right to fair trial, which is now enshrined in Constitution under Art. 10-A of the Constitution, included right of an accused to confront his accuser---Despite that fact, the accused could not be allowed to hijack the trial proceedings in garb of safeguarding the right to fair trial--Accused at times attempted to linger on the trial proceedings with nefarious designs to tamper with the prosecution evidence or avoid his expected conviction and penal consequences, which should not be permitted by the Trial Court---Trial Court was not helpless to proceed further without violating the right to fair trial, especially right to confront one's accuser---Under R. 1, Part C, Vol. 3, Chap. 24 of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, if an accused was unrepresented in a Sessions case and he could not afford to engage a counsel, the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge was bound to make arrangement to employ a counsel at government expense for the said accused---Keeping in view the literal meaning of term 'unrepresented' as used in R. 1, Part C, Vol. 3, Chap. 24 of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, an accused, who although had arranged a counsel, who also filed his power of attorney on his behalf, would deem to be 'unrepresented' if his counsel did not appear before the court and unnecessary delay was caused in early conclusion of trial---Whenever a Trial Court was confronted with such situation, there would be two options available to such court, first was to adjourn the case for a future date or if Trial Court did not deem it appropriate to adjourn the case, then to provide a capable and skilled counsel to the accused on state expenses to carry out cross-examination on prosecution witnesses or court witnesses, if any---In the present case defence counsel gave an undertaking on behalf of petitioner that prosecution witnesses would be cross-examined at the first date of hearing High Court observed and directed that if the same was not done, Trial Court should appoint counsel on State expense as envisaged under R. 1, Part C, Vol. 3, Chap. 24 of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders and should proceed with the trial expeditiously without letting petitioner/accused abuse the process of law any further---Revision petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order accordingly.

Muhammad Bashir v. Rukhsar PLD 2020 SC 334; Muhammad Aslam v. The State and others 2017 PCr.LJ 1264; Abdul Raoof v. The State PLD 2001 Lah. 463;