Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 10-6-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, whereby the application moved by them under section 540, Cr.P.C. To reexamine the prosecution witnesses has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial under section 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979 as they levelled allegation against Ijaz Hussain and Mst. Shazia Parveen father and real daughter that they were found committing Zina with each other and the allegations were found false. After the submission of the challan charge was framed and the witnesses were in attendance for a number of dates but their evidence was not recorded due to the absence of learned defence counsel. At last the learned trial Court on 3-6-2003 recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and opportunities were given to the accused to cross- examine the witnesses and the right of cross-examination was closed. The petitioners moved an application before the learned trial Court that the statements of two witnesses were recorded in the absence of their counsel who was not available due to appearance in the examination being conducted by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, for the appointments of Additional District & Sessions Judges on the said date and witnesses be re-summoned for cross-examination. This application has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the charge in the present case was framed on 24-5-2002 and on about 7/8 dates the witnesses were not present whereas the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners was not available due to the genuine cause that he had to appear in the examination being conducted for the appointment of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, and the non-availability of the learned defence counsel was due to unavoidable circumstances whereas learned trial Court has rejected the application on invalid grounds. It is further contended that the dispensation of justice though requires early disposal of cases but the opportunity of cross-examination has to be afforded to the accused which is necessary in the interest of justice. Relies upon "2001 PCr.LJ page 1293" and "1995 SCMR page 1679" in support of his contentions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through the impugned order as well as order sheet which is placed on the record by the petitioner subsequently. The charge in the present case was framed on 24-5-2002 and the prosecution evidence was summoned for 22-6-2002 when no witness was present but on the next date i.e. 9-7-2002 Ijaz Hussain and Dr. Saima Ahsan P.Ws. Were present and the case was adjourned on the request of learned defence counsel for 17-8-2002. On the said date the case was adjourned due to the absence of the learned Presiding Officer to 9-9-2000 when the case was adjourned to 2-10-2002 for the summoning of the witnesses. On 2-10-2002, the witnesses could not be served and fresh notices were issued for 25-10-2002. On 25-10-2002 the complainant was present and he was directed to produce his witnesses on 12-10-2002, who also undertook to produce them on the next date. Of hearing. The complainant was again present on 12-11-2002 and the case was adjourned for 30-11-2002. On the said date partial evidence was present and the complainant undertook to produce the other witnesses on the next date of hearing i.e. 19-12-2002 when three P.Ws. Were present but the learned defence counsel was not present as he had gone out of station and the case was adjourned for 17-1-2003 on the request made on behalf of learned defence counsel. On 17-1-2003 the P.Ws. Were not present. Similarly P.Ws. Were not served for 6-2-2003 and 25-2-2003.
On 7-3-2003 Lady Doctor Saima Ahsan P.W. Was present but the learned counsel for the accused was not present having been admitted in the hospital and case was adjourned for 26-3-2003. On the said date two P.Ws. Were present but the learned defence counsel requested for the adjournment of the case which was granted in the interest of justice and the case was adjourned for 10-4-2003. On the said date two P.Ws. Were present but the learned defence counsel had gone to Khanewai and due to his absence the case was adjourned for 25-4-2003. On 25-4-2003 the complainant was present but his statement was not recorded and the case was adjourned for production of other P.Ws. As well. On 17-5-2003 the P.Ws. Were present but they could not be examined as the learned defence counsel was not available. After noting down the conduct of defence side that the adjournments were being sought on one pretext or the other, the case was adjourned to 3-6-2003 with the direction that no further adjournment would be allowed to the defence, on which date again learned defence counsel did not appear and statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recorded and opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the accused, who were in attendance. Thereafter an application was moved for re-summoning of said witnesses, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10-6-2003, impugned herein.
5. From the perusal of the order sheet it is clear that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused sought numerous adjournments in spite of that the P.Ws. Were present resulting into grave inconvenience to the witnesses and the learned trial Court in the interest of justice has rightly closed the right of cross-examination on P.W.1 and P.W.2 as the learned defence counsel did not appear in spite of that it was specifically ordered on the last date i.e. 17-5-2003 that no further adjournment would be granted. No valid reason has been shown for the absence of the learned defence counsel on 3-6-2003, whereas the examination for the posts of the learned District and Sessions Judges in the Lahore High Court (Principal Seat) was scheduled to be held on 7-6-2003 and not on 3-6-2003. The Courts have to regulate its proceedings keeping in view the convenience of all the parties. It is not in the interest of justice to cause inconvenience to the witnesses so that they may not enter into criminal litigation with the accused due to said inconvenience. Even otherwise the litigants cannot be given a right to regulate the proceedings of the Court and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioners for re-summoning P.Ws.1 and 2 as numerous opportunities were already granted to them. They were already knowing that last opportunity was granted for examination cf the witnesses on 7-6-2003 and if their learned counsel was not available on the said date, they should have arranged any other counsel to defend them. I find no jurisdictional defect or any illegality in the impugned order, which is maintained.
6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition Which is dismissed in limine.