1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--While the case was being argued, we came across a police statement of complainant Muhammad Aslam Sethi (P.W.5) which was allegedly recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore, on 21st of March, 1977, a copy of which apparently had not been supplied to the appellant as required under the law. The learned counsel for the appellant was also not in a position to affirm or deny its non-supply to the appellant.
2. The complainant was cross-examined with reference to some police statement, but the trial Court mistook it to be the F.I.R. Accordingly, we summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, and examined him today and he confirmed having correctly recorded the; statement There is no gainsaying that the appellant has been denied) the right to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his previous statement. This is a gross violation of the law and prejudice must be presumed to have been caused.
3. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case for enabling the appellant to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his statement, and for examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police, if necessary, for proving the correctness or otherwise of its contents. After this exercise the accused should be examined and an opportunity should be given to him to lead defence, if any, and then to decide the case afresh on merits. Copy of the statement has been supplied to the appellant's counsel. As the case is old, it would be worthwhile for the High Court to consider its expeditious disposal.