1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGAHRI, J.---Appellant was tried by the Judge Special Court S.T.A.
2. Nawabshah for an offence under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Registered vide Crime No.128 of 1992 Police Station Taluka Nawabshah on the allegations of abducting Ali Akbar and Abdul Malik on 5-9- 2001. Having been found guilty of the offence alleged, the appellant was convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.25,000 vide judgment dated 7-4-1996.
3. ' It was mainly contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had no proper legal assistance, was not properly represented before the trial Court thus he was seriously prejudiced.
4. Junior Advocate was provided to hiin by the trial -Court who was also not granted sufficient time to prepare his case.
5. ' Learned counsel appearing for the State concedes to this position and states that he will have no objection if the case is remanded for fresh trial.
6. ' We have considered the submissions, and minutely examined the record and proceedings.
7. A perusal of the paper book of the case reveals that learned trial Judge proceeded with the case in cursory and hateful manner. The accused in the case was represented by an Advocate but he was not being produced by jail authorities as apparent from the case diary. The remaining accused were absconders and the trial of the case was being conducted inside the jail. On 16-11-1995 two materials witnesses namely P.W. Ali Akbar and P.W. Abdul Malik were examined in the absence of Advocate for the accused. After recording the examination-in-chief of P.W. Ali Akbar learned trial Judge observed as under:-- "Cross to Mr. Saleem Raza Gopang, Advocate, for accused Nooh Talpur. Mr. Saleem Raza, Advocate called absent. He is not attending the Court in this case. Hence Mr. Bisharat Ahmed, Advocate is appointed as the request of accused Nooh Talpur as pauper accused."
8. It seems that after recording this observation trial Judge appointed an Advocate for pauper accused then and there and asked him to proceed with the case. Since the Advocate who was appointed for the pauper accused was not conversant with the facts of the case and was not given sufficient time to prepare the case with the result that he could not cross-examine the P.Ws.
9. In a proper and effective manner. It hardly needs to be stated that a fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused and the cross-examination is said to be the most effective legal apparatus ever invented to extract truth from the mouth of a witness. Since the appellant/accused was deprived of a fundamental right by usurping his right of cross-examination, he was seriously prejudiced, which rendered the impugned judgment unsustainable.
10. ' In the backdrop of the above circumstances learned State Counsel has very rightly conceded to the remand of the case.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment is hereby set aside, the case shall be remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial.
12. ' In view of the fact that the case is quite old having been registered in the year 1992 and the accused is in custody, the trial Court shall make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. The progress report of the case shall be regularly submitted to the Additional Registrar of this Court.