MUHAMMAD ADNAN versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WAZIRABAD, DISTRICT GUJRANWALA
Section 540 Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), Rule 302/148/149/109/452 The prosecutor's witness was remanded for cross-examination, which allowed the two-eyed witnesses already appointed to the state's expense on his request. K's lawyer had cross-examined. The accused trial court again summoned the two witnesses to further scrutiny on the grounds that it engaged a private lawyer, which is not a good ground for re-examining the witnesses, who have already cross-examined Took long test exams. The accused failed to state for any reason how he was treated unfairly in his defense. It was his right to provide the accused with an opportunity to engage in counseling, but he could not be allowed to misuse the same provisions of section 404040; the CRPC could not be summoned only for his sake. The decision to fill the lacunas was made on extraordinary ground without revealing how it was necessary to re-examine the aforementioned eyewitnesses, simply that the witnesses could not be pressured to appear in court again, and for no reason. The impeachment order for re-examination was placed by the trial court with the instruction to continue the trial from the present case, according to which the review request was allowed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
