' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---Through this revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 17-6-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur, whereby re-summoning of P.W.1 to P.W.8 for cross-examination was disallowed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in case F.I.R. No, 303 of 2010 dated 3-8-2010 registered at Police Station Sadar Pattoki, District Kasur under sections 396/397/412, P.P.C. After submission of the Challan, statements of prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.14) were recorded, which according to the petitioner, were not cross- examined by the petitioner's counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a poor person could not arrange for his counsel and his case was partly conducted without any counsel; that Mr. Ashiq Javed Bhatti, Advocate was appointed as a Defence Counsel at the State expense when P.Ws. Were not examined; that 20% case of the petitioner was cross-examined and gives a reference to Dr. Abdul Hameed (P.W.4), who was not cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel. Hence, prays for acceptance of this revision petition.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, assisted by the learned counsel for respondent No,2/complainant, submits that on 22-2-2012, Mr. Ashiq Javed Bhatti, Advocate was appointed at the State expense with the consent of the petitioner as his Defence Counsel; that cross-examination of all the P.Ws. Was properly held and after sixteen months, the case was fixed for recording of the petitioner's statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, there was no justification for any re-examination. Hence, prays for dismissal of this revision petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. On 22-2-2012, the petitioner requested the trial court to appoint Mr. Ashiq Javed Bhatti, Advocate as his Defence Counsel at the State expense, whereafter he did not cross-examine P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8, 9 and 13 at all. The record further reveals that P.Ws. 5 to 7 and 10 to 12 were cross-examined.
7. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nawabzada Shah Zain Bugti and others v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 160), it has been held that:- "for the purposes of section 540, Cr. P. C. , the court even without any formal application from prosecution or accused, could summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined."
' In the case of Pervaiz Ahmad v. Munir Ahmad and another [1998 SCM R 326], it was also held that:- - "Court under section 540, Cr.P.C. Has plenary powers for summoning a person as witness or re- examining any person already examined at any stage of the proceedings if such evidence appears essential for just determination of controversy involved in the matter."
' In the case of The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others [2001 SCM R 308], on delay for moving such an application, the criticism of filling up lacunae or partiality of the court has also been held to be ignorable keeping in view the concept of complete justice. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "Calling of additional evidence under section 540, Cr.P.C. Is not always conditioned on defence or prosecution making an application for this purpose. It is duty of court to do complete justice between the parties carelessness or ignorance of one party or other or delay that may result in conclusion of the case should not be a hindrance in achieving object of doing complete justice by allowing additional evidence."
' In a D.B. Case of Peshawar High Court reported as Maqbool v. The State [2006 PCr.LJ 110], it has also been held as under: "Provisions contained in section 540, Cr.P.C. In examining, recalling or summoning any witness are wide enough to give free hand to a court of law to see that the justice does not slip out of hand or is defeated only on the technicalities of law. The courts ought to make maximum endeavour for discovering the truth for arriving at a just decision."
Additionally, after insertion of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the right of fair trial has been guaranteed as a fundamental right of an accused person which right is meaningless unless the veracity of the prosecution witnesses is properly thrashed and weighed through the art of cross-examination.
8. Coming to the facts of the case, in a murder case, if the medical expert is not asked any question by the defence, I am afraid this right of the accused is seriously prejudiced.. Article 10-A of the Constitution is a living organism and not a vague concept. Just by providing an advocate to an accused at the State expense without evaluating his performance in the court in order to watch interest of the accused should not escape from the attention of the court. Filling of lacunae, delay in making such an application or even partiality are ignorable technicalities when compared to the illuminating concept of complete justice. The courts, in my humbly opinion, cannot be absolved of their responsibilities to ensure that the accused are extended all possible legal help/assistance to defend their cases.
9. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to re- examine P.Ws. 4 to 7 and 9 to 13 for cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner to be completed within a period of seven days from the receipt of this order.