' Application moved by the petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. In the learned Drug Court Multan in case No,490/2001 under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 was dismissed vide order, dated 20-9-2007 and costs amounting to Rs,1,200 (one thousand and two hundred) was also imposed on the petitioner vide order, dated 21-9-2006. Both the orders have been impugned through this revision.
2. Arguments, however, were addressed only in respect of application under section 540, Cr.P.C, It was contended that right to cross-examine the witness (P.W.3) was closed by the learned trial Court without any legal justification. This exercise of jurisdiction arbitrarily was going to result in miscarriage of justice and would cause loss beyond repair to the petitioner. Petitioner had the right to cross-examine the P. Ws. And this right could not be taken away. Reliance was placed on 1997 PCr.LJ 628, 2007 PCr.LJ 905 and PLD 2001 Lah.
463.
3. Of course cross-examination is a very valuable right particularly of accused. However, recognition of this right as such is not to be misused. To invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner must have established some legal ground. A look through application moved by petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. Would show that he was hovering under the impression that perhaps it was his choice to exercise the right of cross-examination as and when he wanted and he was not required even to explain as to why he did not cross-examine when he was required to do so. This was a misconception. The petitioner must have come up with cogent reason as to why he could not cross-examine the witness at relevant time. Copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court or proceedings of recording of evidence have not been placed on record by the petitioner. It is not case of the petitioner that he was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; Uncertified copy of the application moved by the petitioner does not disclose any reason as to why P.W.3 was not cross-examined by the petitioner or his counsel. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to make out a case that he could not cross-examine the witness for any reason beyond his control or any lapse was committed by the learned trial Court in not allowing him to cross-examine. Without mentioning any ;eason he moved the application on the sole ground that cross-examination was the most valuable right of the accused.
4. If the petitioner himself did not bother about the value of this right, the learned trial. Court obviously was not left with any option but to move on to the next stage of the case to ensure its disposal.
5. For the above mentioned reasons the facts of this case are distinguishable than those involved in the referred cases. This petition is held to be without any force, hence, is dismissed in limine.