Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZ-UR-RAHMAN CHOWDHURY VS Respondent: ALTAF HUSSAIN
P L D 1956 Dacca 248
P L D 1956 Dacca 248
Before Ellis, C J and Badiuzzaman, J
AZIZ‑UR‑RAHMAN CHOWDHURY‑Petitioner
versus
ALTAF HUSSAIN‑ Opposite‑Party
Criminal Revision No. 493 of 1953, decided on 10th December, 1953.
Criminal trial‑--
--‑‑ complainant examined‑in‑Chief on commission‑‑Presence in Court in propria persona‑Whether and when allowed.
Where the issues arising in a case do not seem to be such as would require the personal appearance of the complainant or would lead to any inference that the accused will be prejudiced if the complainant is asked to answer questions on commission rather than required to be present in Court in person, the Court will not direct a personal appearance of the complainant in Court.
Enayetur Rahman for Petitioner.
Salahuddin Ahmad, Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown.
JUDGMENT
ELLIS, C. J.‑The Court in this case was moved by one Azizur Rahman Chowdhury. He is, at present, standing trial before Mr. A. B. M. Fazle Rabbi, a Magistrate of the 1st Class of Dacca on charges under sections 420/468 of the Penal Code.
The proceedings against the petitioner were instituted by Altaf Husain, Editor of the newspaper "DAWN' who forwarded a letter on the 14th of October 1952, to the Superintendent of Police at Dacca making certain complaints against the petitioner Azizur Rahman Chowdhury, the pro prietor of the Kohinoor Library at 88, Islampur Road, Dacca, in respect of certain publications of this Library. In the trial a writ for the examination of the complainant on commission at Karachi was issued and it has been returned with the complainant's answers so far as the examination‑in‑chief is concerned. No questions to be asked of the complainant in cross‑examination were ever submitted and instead the petitioner began to move, asking for the complainant to be summoned from Karachi to Dacca in order that he might be cross‑examined in person in the Court at Dacca. His request was negatived by the Additional District Magistrate on the 21st of September 1953, and the learned Sessions judge declined to interfere when he was approached on the 30th of September 1953 ; and so on the 8th of October 1953 the petitioner moved this Court in its Criminal Revisional jurisdiction and obtained the present Rule.
Mr. Enayetur Rahman has appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, Deputy Legal Remembrancer, has appeared to oppose the Rule.
The substance Mr. Enayetur Rahman's arguments is that the petitioner would be prejudiced if the complainant is cross‑examined on commission at Karachi. He has further submitted that interrogatories for the cross‑examination of the complainant will not serve the purpose of the defence which requires the presence of the complainant in propria persona in the Court at Dacca. It is further argued that the petitioner is himself in ill health and therefore it is inadvisable for him to proceed to Karachi and he is not rich enough to afford the expenses of going himself or to arrange for some one to represent him at Karachi.
The record shows that the questions for the examination of the complainant‑in‑chief were submitted and have been answered by the complainant on commission. We really do not see why the petitioner cannot frame counter interroga tories for the cross‑examination of the complainant in view of the substance of the complaint which was actually filed on the 14th of October 1952, and the questions asked in the examina tion‑in‑chief. The issues arising in the case do not seem to us to be such as would require the personal appearance of the complainant or would lead to any inference that the petitioner will be prejudiced if the complainant is asked to answer questions on commission rather than required to come to Dacca to appear in Court in person.
For these reasons we do not see any reason to interfere with the matter or direct a personal appearance of the com plainant in Dacca. His examination on commission at Karachi may be allowed to go on.
BADIUZZAMAN, J.‑I agree.
K. B. A. Petition rejected.