Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ZAFAR IQBAL vs State art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ZAFAR IQBAL VS State art. 133--- Cross-examination---Scope---Cross-examination was a valuable right which was more important than examination-in-chief. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ZAFAR IQBAL VS State Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 & 109---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, forged document, abetment, criminal misconduct---Striking down the right of cross-examination---Complainant and Investigating Officer were not cross-examined by defence counsel and the right of cross-examination was closed---Validity---Record reflected that the Trial Court had examined Investigating Officer in absence of counsel, whereas the statement of complainant was recorded in his presence but later on due to absence of counsel for the petitioner, the right of cross-examination was closed---Record revealed that the Trial Court had allowed the time i.e., 3 to 4 hours for appearance of counsel of accused---If statement of witnesses had been recorded in absence of counsel such evidence lost significance---Injustice was likely to occur in a case where cross-examination was not conducted by the counsel or right of cross-examination was closed---Even the cross-examination conducted by accused himself on prosecution witnesses was not considered to be substitute of cross-examination conducted by the counsel---Cross-examination of a witness was the most valuable right of an accused---accused should not suffer due to fault of counsel for not cross-examining the complainant and Investigating Officer, who were the most important witnesses---In absence of cross-examination, the accused shall be seriously prejudiced---Petition was allowed, in circumstances and Trial Court was directed to provide opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner for cross-examination of complainant and Investigating Officer.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ZAFAR IQBAL vs State art — 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported