Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 257, 540

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 257 to 540- Witnesses for prosecution-Recall of-Record not indicating each one of accused to have been given opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses-Accused's counsel being engaged elsewhere, prosecution witnesses, nut cross-examined-Magistrate refusing to resummon witnesses on ground that S. 257, Cr. P. C. does not permit resummoning of witnesses-Accused petitioner advised to apply to trial Court under S. 540, Cr. P. C. and Magistrate asked to pass proper orders keeping in view fact of absence of accused's counsel. State v. Muhammad Jamil P L D 1965 S C 681 ref.`   ORDER The grievance made out in this application. is that on 12th of August 1969, when .three prosecution witnesses, were examined, the counsel for the petitioner and his co-accused was busy in another case and the witnesses could not, therefore, be properly cross-examined. Some more evidence was examined on 6th of October 1969, on which date the counsel for the petitioner and his co-accused was ill in Lahore and he sent a telegram to the learned Magistrate to this effect. The learned Magistrate, however, refused to adjourn the case and the accused had to cross-examine the witnesses. An application for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed on the ground that the witnesses had already been cross-examined. 2. The fact stands that the counsel for the petitioner and his co-accused was absent on both the occasions and there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses were not properly cross-examined.…