MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (Abdul Rauf), who is an accused in a case F.I.R. No,21 of 1999 registered under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Multan, whose trial is in progress before Mr. Abdul Sattar, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, challenging the impugned orders dated 11-5-2001 and 19-5-2001.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-5-2001 two P.Ws. Namely Wakeel Ahmad, Lance Naik and Shabbir Assad, A.S.-I., were present in the Court and were to be cross-examined by the learned counsel of the petitioner, as their examination-in-chief had already been recorded. Since the counsel of the petitioner was not available and his trial was under the direction of this Court to be concluded by 22-5-2001. The trial Court passed an order whereby the right to cross-examine the abovesaid witnesses was closed and 14-5-2001 was fixed for further proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had moved an application through his junior associate seeking adjournment but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11-5-2001.
4. The petitioner through his counsel moved an application on 16-5-2001 for summoning Wakeel Ahmad, Lance Naik and Shabbir Asad. A.S.-I. For the purpose of cross-examination as they were material witnesses. This application of the petitioner was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19-5-2001.
5. Feeling aggrieved of the order, whereby the application for re-summoning of the witnesses under section 540, Cr.P.C. Was rejected, the petitioner has filed the instant revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above-mentioned witnesses were material witnesses and, if not cross-examined, the accused/petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. He further contends that cross-examination of the above two witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case. He also states that his absence was not wilful and he was busy before the other Courts and he had also made an application for adjournment.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and had the assistance of the learned A.A.-G. There is an denial of the fact that cross-examination is most valuable right of an accused and is the only vehicle through which the truth or falsity of the witnesses can be determined. We are also conscious of the fact that if a prosecution witness is not cross-examined then an accused person's case can be seriously prejudiced.
8. No doubt that there was a direction of this Court for conclusion of the trial by 22-5-2001 but in spirit this order meant only a speedy conclusion of the trial, However, in exceptional circumstances the time can also be extended in the interest of justice.
9. Cross-examination is a specialised job, which can only be made by a counsel. We find that in this case, the Court did not put a single question to ascertain the truth and nor the accused cross- examined the witnesses himself.
10. Since the witnesses are material, we admit this petition to regular hearing and allow the same with a direction to the trial Court to re-summon Wakeel Ahmad, Lance Naik and Shabbir Asad. A.S.- I., one more time, for the purpose of their cross-examination. However, if the witnesses are not cross-examined on the date fixed by the trial Court, then the petitioner would not be given any other opportunity and the case would not be adjourned for any other date for that purpose.
11. This petition with the above observations stands disposed of.