Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision Application No. 112 of 1985, decided on 6th August, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 540‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S. 22(b)‑‑Revision‑ Cross‑examination of prosecution witness by accused‑‑Application for cross‑examination under S. 540, Cr.P.C., rejected by Trial Court on ground that no such prayer was made at time of examination of prosecution witness and that application was moved after long delay‑‑ Explanation of accused, that application could not be made due to vacation in Court and that when Courts re‑opened application was made, appearing to be convincing and sufficient‑‑Order of Trial Court rejecting application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. set aside and Court directed to allow applicant or his counsel to cross‑examine witness.
Jawaid Kazmi for Applicant.
A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State.
The applicant is facing trial under section 22(b) of the Emigration 1979 in the Court of Special Judge (Central). Karachi. P.W. Muhammad Ashraf was examined on 27‑5‑1985 but he was not cross examined. Thereafter, on 3‑7‑1985 an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was moved by the counsel for the applicant/accused to cross examine the said witness Muhammad Ashraf. This application was rejected on the ground that no prayer was made at the time of examination of P.W. Muhammad Ashraf by the accused for cross‑examining him and the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was moved after long delay.
The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the application could not be filed as the Court was closed due to vacation. The Court was re‑opened on 1‑7‑1986, thereafter he has submitted the application. The explanation is convincing. Even otherwise, an opportunity be granted to the counsel for the applicant for examination. It has been stated by him that he could not reach Karachi. The contention of the learned counsel is sufficient.
The learned A.A.‑G. has also not opposed this application.
The revision application is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to allow the applicant or his counsel to cross‑examine the witness. The witness be recalled on 3‑9‑ 1986.
M.Y.H./A‑13/K Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer