1. Appellant is contesting indictment before learned Additional Sessions Judge at Karor; he was allegedly found in possession of some contraband attracting mischief of Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide Crime Report No.330 dated 7.8.2016 registered with Police Station Fatehpur , District Layyah; he claimed trial pursuant whereto prosecution evidence was summoned; as some of the witnesses were examined-in-chief, however , on account of non-availability of defence counsel on a number of dates learned trial Court ultimately proceeded to forefeit appellant's right to cross - examine the witnesses; reasons cited in the impugned order are sound and logical; no doubt right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is most important right of an accused, certainly it goes without saying that an accused is entitled to a fair trial which presupposes reasonable opportunity to defend himself, nonetheless, once an opportunity is afforded to the accused it becomes incumbent upon him to avail it and he cannot hold in abeyance his response to point of time of his own choice. Similarly , it is a statutory duty cast upon a counsel to remain in attendance in order to provide services to his client paymaster; both are subservient to law and in this backdrop, step taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be excepted to, however , given the charge and possible consequ ences concomitant therewith, it would be expedient to allow solitary opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Disposed of.