' This is a State appeal directed against the order of learned M.I.C. Nowshera, dated 9-10-1984 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent under section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C. Relying on defence evidence.
2. The case is that the accused-respondent was seen making suspicious movements and detained and searched by the Investigating Officer and was found to carry on his person a pistol of 303 bore with two live rounds of the same bore. He did not hold any licence to justify his possession of the weapon as also the rounds and was apprehended and a case under section 13 Arms Ordinance registered against him.
3. The prosecution examined evidence to support the case and so did the accused-respondent in disproof of the allegations against him. The trial Court accepted the defence evidence and acquitted the accused.
4. I need not go into merits of the case to see which side has succeeded in establishing its stand because I find that a couple of material irregularities have been committed in the trial of the case which are not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C.
5. It can be seen that the accused-respondent had not been examined on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor was any question in that regard put to him asking him if he wanted to appear to be examined on oath. Under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Court to examine the accused person on oath. There is no escape for the accused from being examined on oath. He has to give evidence on oath when called upon by the Court to meet the requirement of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He may or may not lead evidence in defence but he has to give evidence personally on oath and unless that is done the trial of the case is not complete, as held in the case of Jan Muhammad N. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 2302. Here as is evident, not only the accused-respondent had not been examined as envisaged under the aforesaid section, he had not even been asked any question to that effect by the Court in his statement. Clearly, therefore, a serious irregularity in failing to comply with the relevant provisions of law has occurred in the case as examination of the accused on oath is integral part of the trial. .
6. The other irregularity has occurred in examining the defence evidence. It can be seen that three of the defence witnesses namely, Sher All Khan, Muhammad Akram Khan and Haji Ayaz Khan had been examined together at one time. They had been subjected to cross-examination but it is not clear how that had been done and which one of the witnesses had answered the questions.
7. Under the law every witness, be he for any side, requires to be examined individually so that comparison of different statements can be made to see how far they are true. This in the instant case is not possible because only one statement has been recorded on behalf of three witnesses.
' Accordingly, the case requires to be retried and I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the case back to it for rehearing from the stage of examination of the accused- respondent. The accused-respondent is directed to appear before the trial Court on 10-6-1990.