' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioners/accused in Criminal Revisions Nos. 10, 56 and 127 of 2010 have brought under attack the order recorded on 2-1-2010, by Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur to the extent of closing their right of cross-examination on P.Ws. 3 to 5.
2. All these three criminal revision petitions have arisen out of one and the same order and under common set of facts in one case, hence, are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Briefly the facts strictly relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that examination-in-chief of Rana Muhammad Naeem (P.W.3), Munshi Riasat Ali (P.W.4) and Rana Imran (P.W.5) was recorded on 15-7-2009. The cross-examination on them was reserved.
Ultimately vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court denied them such right by closing the same and directed to treat it as NIL.
4. The petitioners feeling themselves aggrieved of the impugned order to that extent have challenged the same by way of their these respective revision petitions.
5. It has been contended on their behalf that cross-examination is a valuable right given to an accused by law and the same can't be denied to him except on sound reason; that they did not avoid to cross-examine these material witnesses but it was under compelling circumstances, as they needed previous statement of a witness and only then cross-examination on them could be done; and that in case, such right is not afforded to them, they would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice to them in their defence and the same may also be against the interest of justice. It has been prayed on their behalf that they may be afforded at least one more opportunity to cross- examine these witnesses and in that an event, they would avail the same and arrange to produce their counsel before the learned trial Court on a date to be given to them by it for that purpose.
6. On the other hand, the learned D.P.-G. Though has submitted that the petitioners/accused's side has intentionally delayed the proceedings in the case and they on the flimsy ground have declined to cross-examine these witnesses but they now only to secure the ends of justice, may be afforded one more opportunity for the purpose, if it may be so, considered proper and in that an event, they may be bound to produce their counsel on such date to be given by the learned trial Court to them for the purpose and avoid to prolong the matter.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
8. As is obvious from the above position that the right of cross-examination on the aforesaid P.Ws.
Has been closed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order and it has directed to treat the same as NIL.
9. It but is always the duty of Court to deliver even-handed justice to the parties to a cause before it. It is also well known maxim in law that the supreme object before Court is always to achieve the ends of justice and justice is not only to be done but seem to have been done.
10. Hence, I want to say here that although, it has reflected from the record that the petitioners/accused's side has demonstrated an attitude towards the case, which safely can be said to be lethargic or careless and such an attitude cannot be endorsed to, it but is a murder case and the witnesses required to be cross-examined are material one and hence to achieve the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate that at least one more opportunity to them (petitioners/accused) may be afforded to cross- examine them, if it may be so liked. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Nazir v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 1783 Lahore).
11. However, it is here made clear to all concerned that it is sheer in the interest of justice. It is also made clear here at the same time that it should not cause inconvenience and injustice, in any way, to the other side as justice may be dispensed with in an even way.
12. It may also be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioners present have assured that their side will arrange to produce their counsel before the learned trial Court on a date to be given by it for the purpose of cross-examination on these P.Ws. And such opportunity may be availed in its true sense and no untoward attitude or behavior would be demonstrated by them.
13. Taking into consideration all such facts and circumstances, on the record, and to reach to a just decision in the case, I accept these petitions and set aside the impugned order to the extent of closure of the right of the petitioners/accused to cross-examine these witnesses. The learned trial Court is directed to afford at least one more opportunity to them to cross-examine these witnesses. It shall now fix a date for the purpose and inform them to arrange for production of their counsel before it on such date to avail that opportunity. Their learned counsel are also expected to make sure that they would avail such opportunity afforded to them on a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. It is also made clear that no further opportunity to them would be afforded for the purpose and it shall be treated as last and final.