1. 'MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This revision petition is directed against the order of District Criminal Court, Mirpur, dated January 31, 2006.
2. ' The succinct facts forming the background of instant revision petition are that a challan under sections 302/458, A.P.C. And 13-20-65 of Arms Act was submitted against the petitioner before District Criminal Court, Mirpur. The lower Court was recording the evidence of the prosecution.
3. During the course of statement of Raja Murawat Khan, P.W. No,11 a question was put to him, whether on August, 10, 2005, the leg of Ali Asghar was fractured or not. The witness stated that he does not know. It was further asked from him that had police told him about the fracture of the leg of Ali Asghar. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused jumped from the house, so his leg sustained injuries. On this, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defence that this answer should not be recorded, as it was not asked from the witness during the course of cross-examination. Therefore, it should not be recorded. The answer should be confined only up to the question. The lower Court did not agree with the learned counsel for the defence and recorded the reply submitted by P.W. No,11. Now, this order has been challenged through instant revision petition.
4. ' Ch. Ali Muhammad, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he only asked to the witness that had police told him about the fracture of the leg, but the witness himself deposed that on the day of occurrence, the accused jumped from the house, so his leg sustained fracture. He submitted that witness was not authorized to state himself. He has only to reply the question put to him. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
5. ' While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Raja Inamullah Khan and the learned Additional Advocate-General, argued that the order of the lower Court is perfectly legal and does not require any indulgence by this Court. It was further submitted that witness has clearly stated that leg of the accused sustained fracture during the occurrence when he jumped from the house. Therefore, this revision petition has no merit, as such; it may be dismissed, as it has been filed just to prolong the trial of the case.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have given my utmost muse to the respective arguments advanced by the learned Advocates.
7. ' While recording the cross-examination, it is fundamental duty of the trial Court to be vigilant and properly control the cross-examination and should ensure that witness has understood the question before answering the same. The Court should not be in hurry and should give full attention to the witness and the question put to him. It is also duty of A the Court to see whether the questions, put to the witness during the course of cross-examination, are relevant or not. The Court should not allow putting lengthy and irrelevant questions to the witness. While recording the statement of the witness in a murder case, it is paramount duty of the trial Court to be well conversant with the facts of the case, because if the Court will not be conversant with the facts of the case, then it will be impossible for the Court to decide whether question is relevant or irrelevant, and then the witness shall be totally at the mercy of the learned counsel for the defence.
8. ' Now-a-days, a trend of lengthy cross-examination is prevailing A for the purpose of leading the witness into an error, after his alterness has been reduced from a fatigue and his resistance to suggestions made in the form of leading questions has thereby been reduced. Such a practice is plainly designed, not for the disclosure of truth, but for the manipulation of an error and use of such method must be discouraged. This view is fortified by judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan pronounced by an eminent jurist and Judge Mr. A.R. Cornelius, for whom I have a great respect, reported in PLD 1967 SC 167, which as under:-- "The purpose of cross-examination is to assist the Court in bringing the truth to light by disclosing or clarifying matters which witnesses may wish to conceal or confuse from motives of partisanship.
9. The partisan nature of all these witnesses with the exception of Karim Bakhsh was plain, and in view of the nature of the defence set up, the points on which concealment was to be excepted were also well-defined. Effective cross-examination could be confined within a narrow compass. Here, the questioning went beyond all reasonable limits.
10. ' There is a regrettable practice among class of lawyers to use prolonged cross-examination for the purpose.Of leading a witness into error after his alterness has been reduced through fatigue and his resistance to suggestions made in the form of leading questions has thereby been reduced. Such a practice is plainly designed not for the disclosure of truth, but for the manipulation of error, and we take this opportunity of expressing our entire disapproval of the use of such methods. Mr. Berkat Ali Saleemi himself agreed that when he studied the case for the purpose of the present appeal, he felt that he had gone too far in taking up the time of the Court and by subjecting each of the witnesses to a prolonged ordeal. He undertook to avoid such a practice in the future."
11. ' It has clearly been laid down in the aforesaid judgment that basic purpose of cross-examination is to assist the Court in bringing truth to light by disclosing or clarifying the matters, which witness may wish to conceal or confuse from the motive of partisanship. The fundamental purpose of the cross-examination is to sought out the truth by disclosing or clarifying the matters.
12. ' In the instant case, basic purpose of putting questions to Raja Murawat Khan, regarding the injury of Ali Asghar was that how he sustained injuries. The learned counsel for the defence suggested that on August 10, 2005, leg of Ali Asghar sustained fracture in Siakh and the witness while replying this question, stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused jumped from the house, so his leg sustained fracture. He has clarified the matter that how the accused sustained fracture.
13. ' As the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that answer should be confined only up to the question and witness was not authorized to state himself. It has no substance for the reason that no mathematical procedure is prescribed for cross-examination. It is not necessary that witness should only reply questions according to the wish of the learned counsel for the defence. Cross-examination is a double-edged sword. A witness while replying questions can explain the matter for clarifying the questions or dispute. In the instant case, the witness has clarified that how accused sustained injury to his leg, therefore, it cannot be said that the lower Court has wrongly recorded the answer furnished by the witness.
14. ' Before parting with the judgment, I would like to state that it came to my notice that now-a-days, the Courts are not drawing any distinction between the witness and accused. The attitude and behaviour of the Courts and the learned counsel with the witnesses is not different from accused persons, while under law, a due respect and full protection should be given to the witnesses. Mostly the counsels, while conducting the cross-examination, use to misbehave with the witnesses, while it is paramount duty of the Court to give full respect to the witness. The Court should also ensure that witness should not be insulted by any counsel. There should be a difference between the witness and the accused person. It also came to my notice that witnesses have to appear on various dates for recording their statement. They have to wait for the case while sitting outside the premises of the Courts while accused are also sitting outside the Court. When witnesses appear before the Court, then they are misbehaved. It is the duty of the Court to ensure about the integrity, honour and dignity of the witness. Otherwise, no one will like to appear before the Court as a witness.
15. ' The epitome of the above discussion is that finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.
16. Petition dismissed.
17. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 497---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4---Bail, grant of---Accused were behind the bars for about last three months without trial---No evidence at all was available that accused had been selling liquor---Even the recovery of proverbial currency notes had not been effected---Present was the first case against accused persons as they did not have any record---Accused were granted bail, in circumstances. [p. 1081] A Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioners.
18. Mehr Muhammad Saleem for the State.
19. 'MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- According to the contents of the F.I.R. No,177, dated 23-7-2005, Hasnain Abbas, A.S.-I. Of Police Station Basti Malook, lodged a report at the said police station in District Multan that he was on patrol duty along with the police officials mentioned in the F.I.R. When an informer reported that the petitioners are preparing local liquor in a still. A raid was conducted and the said persons were arrested. One of them was lighting fire under the still, while the other was changing the water. Some items mentioned in the F.I.R. Like a plastic pipe etc. Including 4 litres of liquor were recovered. A case under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 was registered. The bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Magistrate on 17-9-2005, while the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan dismissed the plea on 27-9-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case is false.The items recovered are of every day use. According to him, at the most a case under Article 4 of the said Order is made out which is bailable.
3. The learned State Counsel strongly'opposes the bail application.
4. I have examined the records. The petitioners are behind the bars since almost three months without a trial. There is no evidence at all that they had been selling the liquor. Even the recovery of proverbial currency notes has not been effected. The police official informs me that this is the first case against the petitioners and they do not have any record. I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the petitioners namely Altaf Hussain and Khalid Hussain subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.