Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 483 of 1983, decided on 6th November, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.457 & 380‑‑Accused not allowed an opportunity to cross‑examine large number of witnesses‑‑Application for resummoning witnesses for cross‑examination, declined by trial Court‑‑Order of trial Court refusing application of accused for resummoning witnesses passed without applying mind to facts narrated in such application‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside‑‑Case remanded for trial afresh.

Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema for Petitioner.

Bashir Pervez for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1984.

Muhammad Amin, petitioner, was convicted under section 457/380, P. P. C. and sentenced to two years' R. I. and one year R.I., respectively by Mr. Danish Raza, Magistrate 1st Class, Sialkot. On 9‑7‑1983, his appeal was dismissed in toto. The revision is before me.

2. In this case five witnesses could not be cross‑examined because the petitioner did not engage a counsel. At a later stage, he made an application for resummoning the witnesses so that they may be cross examined but the same was declined by the trial Court on the ground that an opportunity was allowed to the accused which was not availed of. This order appears to have been made without applying the mind to the facts narrated in this application. Its perusal would, reveal that due to meagre means, the accused could not engage a counsel earlier. It was also argued that the complainant in this case and some of the witnesses have been accused of the murder of., Nawaz, petitioner's co accused. It is also contended that the murder of Nawaz arose out of the same incident because the defence version is that. Nawaz had gone to realize the debt but was killed instead. Whatever be the defence case, it cannot be gone into at this stage because I feel that the accused should have been allowed an opportunity to put his case to the witnesses 'under cross‑examination. Since a large number of witnesses have not been cross‑examined, I, therefore, remand the case setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner with the direction that the case be tried afresh.

3. Office is directed to send the case to the District Magistrate forthwith. The accused should appear before him on 25‑11‑1984 on which date the case be made over to any other Magistrate of competent jurisdiction before whom the accused will furnish fresh bail bonds before commencing the retrial. The Magistrate shall make an appropriate order in this direction.

M.Y.H. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.