Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BURHANUDDIN VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Ataullah Sajjad Title: BURHANUDDIN vs The STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 282 of 1971 Date of Judgment:1971-06-04 Reported As: 1972 P Cr. L J 7 Result: Petition accepted
Judgment ORDBR The grievance made in this revision petition is that the learned Magistrate called the case after the Court hours and proceeded to record the statement of Muhammad Iqbal an eye-witness in the case notwithstanding the fact that the counsel for the petitioner objected to the start of the case after the Court hours. Later on the counsel agreed that the examination-in-chief of the witness may be recorded but the right of cross-examination may be reserved. 2. It is submitted that in spite of this understanding the learned Magistrate asked the counsel for the petitioner to cross- examine the witness who expressed his inability to do so on the ground that the Court hours were already over. In support of the contention that no new case could be taken up after the Court hours the learned counsel relies on para. 8, Correction Slip No. 37 of Chapter I-A of the Rules and Orders of the High Court, Volume III. This Correction Slip contains a direction to the Courts below that no new case should be taken up after the Court hours. The learned counsel points out that the case was heard on Saturday some time after 3 o'clock. He submits that the closing hour on Saturday is 3 p. m. 3. The impugned order shows that it was passed at 3- 30 p. m. This lends support to the factual contention raised before me that the Court hours were already over when the case was started and the counsel was asked to cross-examine the witness. In view of these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and direct that Muhammad Iqbal P. W. shall be recalled and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine him. .