' Through this criminal revision the petitioner seeks setter aside of order of Special Judge Central Lahore dated 13-9-2001 and has prayed for the permission to cross-examine P.W.1 Qaiser Ali.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is facing criminal trial before the Special Judge Central Lahore titled "Muhammad Shoaib Inamul Haq v. State" in case F.I.R. No,2 registered on 16-1-1997 "under section 17/22 Immigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station F.I.A, P.C, Lahore and under section 24 in a complaint under section 24(6), Immigration Ordinance, 1979.
3 There is no need to give the detail of the facts of the criminal case as only question involved in this revision petition is that Qaiser Ali has been examined as P.W.1 by the learned trial Court who was duly cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel and subsequently he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the co-accused of Shoaib Inamul Haq. Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 13-9-2001 in which the application was moved for further cross-examination of Qaiser Ali by the petitioner as according to him some new facts have come on the record during the cross-examination of this witness by the counsel of the co-accused which according to him are damaging to his stand. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the petitioner, if is not allowed to cross-examine further, will suffer irreparable loss and his case will be prejudiced. He relied upon AIR 1924 Pat. 402 in which it has been held that when a document is produced by opponent after his witness's cross-examination is . Over the witness can be recalled for further cross-examination on the document. (The relevant page is at 414-C). He also relied upon AIR 1937 All. 171 in which it has been held that a witness was cross-examined and re- examined. In re-examination fresh matter was introduced. The council asked for cross- examination of the witness again. The Court granted only three minutes. He also relied upon AIR 1923 PC 95 in which it has been held that a witness cannot be disbelieved without his attention being drawn to the documents inconsistent with his deposition even though the documents were produced after his examination. In such a case he should be recalled . For further cross- examination, and finally relied upon a case reported in 1988 P.Cr.LJ 1964 (Roshan Ali v. State).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and has perused the case-law cited by him. Admittedly the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Qaiser Ali and he cross-examined the said witness at length. Subsequently, the other counsel of Shoaib Inamul. Haq accused also cross-examined this witness. The application has been moved for 'the further cross- examination of this witness by the petitioner.' First of all I will like .To distinguish the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case reported in AIR 1923 PC 95. The facts of this case are quite different and it has been held that a witness cannot be disbelieved without his attention being drawn to the documents in consistent with his deposition even though the documents were produced after his examination. In such a case he should be recalled for further cross- examination. No such document has been produced by the prosecution hence the facts and circumstances of this case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
Similarly is the other case AIR 1937 Allahabad 171 , in which the facts are quite different. Opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine them and then witnesses were re-examined. It was held that when the fresh matter was introduced in re-examination Court has to give further opportunity to cross- examine the witness. The 3rd case is reported in AIR 1924 Pat.
402. This case is also distinguishable from the case in hand on the ground that some documents were produced by the opponent after his witness's cross-examination was over. It was held that the witness can be recalled for further cross-examination on the document. The 4th case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 1998 PCr.11 1964 (Roshan Ali's case). In this case the 'witness was examined and the accused could not engage a counsel and Advocate ,appearing on behalf of pauper cross-examined the witness but certain material questions were not put by the said counsel regarding the previous enmity between the witness and the accused and also the important question regarding contradictions in the F.I.R. Was not put, hence it was found necessary that the complainant may be recalled and opportunity may be given to the defence to cross- examine him. From the bare perusal of the case-law it becomes crystal clear that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. I have found not a single case in which the opportunity of cross-examination was given to the counsel for the co-accused for cross-examination and then any opportunity was afforded to the accused to further cross-examine the witness hence case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Admittedly, the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Jafar Ali P:W.1 under section 133 of Qanune Shahadat which is reproduced asunder: "(1.) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-Chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross- examined, then (if the party tailing him so desires), re-examined.
(2) The examination and cross- examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross- examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his Examination-in- Chief.
(3) The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross examinations and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine that matter."
It is crystal clear that if the examination- in-chief of a witness, f the adverse party so desire can cross-examine him and if the party calling him so desire can re-examine a witness and under subsection (3) if some further material is brought on the record and a new fact has been introduced then the adverse party may further cross-examine that matter which has been put during reexamination of a witness hence there is no provision for further cross-examination of a witness after the cross-examination of the co-accused. It does not appeal to mind that when an opportunity has been afforded to an accused person to cross-examine a witness and thereafter the co-accused cross-examined then another opportunity should be given to the co-accused to further cross-examine and naturally the second accused shall also request for the cross- examination of the witness and there will be no end of cross-examination of a witness and this will definitely hamper the proceedings and the trial will not come to an end in spite of examination and cross-examination of a witness. The law does not provide such an opportunity to the accused to further cross-examine a witness in the above circumstances. I do not find any illegality or improbability in the orders passed by the learned trial Court, impugned in this revision petition. This revision petition has not merits and is dismissed.
Revision .