Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 PCrLJ 577
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: Shahzad Haider vs StateHonorable Justice Abher Gul KhanMalik Muhammad Akbar Awan
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between Shahzad Haider and StateHonorable Justice Abher Gul KhanMalik Muhammad Akbar Awan, officially reported as 2026 PCrLJ 577. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2026 P Cr. L J 577 [Lahore] Before Abher Gul Khan, J Shahzad Haider---Petitioner Versus The State and 3 others---Respondents Criminal Revision No. 37605 of 2025, heard on 25th June, 2025. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.340(1)---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter 24-C---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property---Striking down right of cross-examination---Legality---Petitioner s right of cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses was closed---Validity---Perusal of record revealed that petitioner was booked in the present case whereby charge against him was framed and subsequently the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence---On 16.05.2025 due to the non- appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court not only his right to cross-examine the prosecution witness was closed but his non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued---Thereafter on 14.06.2025 right of the petitioner to cross-examine another prosecution witness was also closed---Trial Court did not consider it appropriate to appoint State Counsel to cross-examine those two material witnesses nor put any question to them and passed the impugned order without any legal justificationwhile ignoring the fact that accused was facing charge of capital offence---Article 10 of the Constitution guaranteed legal aid to an arrested person---Said constitutional right had been protected by the codified law---Section 340(1), Cr.P.C., statutorily recognized the right of an accused to be defended---Such right of an accused of an offence entailing capital punishment was further elaborated under Chapter 24-C of Volume-III of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders---Said provisions were crystal clear that a person arrested had a constitutional right to the services of a counsel, therefore, he must be given reasonable opportunity to engage a counsel and the counsel engaged must be given reasonable opportunity to defend him---Basic principle underlying this exercise appeared to be that no one should be condemned unheard---Impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed in sheer violation of law---Thus, the orders dated 16.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 passed by Trial Court were not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, same were set- aside---As a sequel thereof, petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine both the prosecution witnesses---If counsel of petitioner did not appear to cross-examine the witnesses, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to appoint counsel at State expenses to meet the requirement of law---Criminal revision was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Yaseen alias Mithou and another v. The State 2010 PCr.LJ 1253 rel. Malik Muhammad Akbar Awan for Petitioner. Ms. Sumaira Shafi, DDPP for the State. Date of hearing: 25th June, 2025. Judgment Abher Gul Khan, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the vires of orders dated 16.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby the right of the petitioner to cross-examine PWs.16 and 17 was closed. 2. Arguments heard and record perused. 3. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was booked in case F.I.R. No. 251/2023 for the offences under sections 302, 392 and 411 P.P.C whereby charge against him was framed and subsequently the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. On 16.05.2025 due to the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial court not only his right to cross-examine the PW.16 was closed but his non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued. Thereafter on 14.06.2025 right of the petitioner to cross-examine PW.17 was also closed. It is worth mentioning that the learned trial Court also did not consider it appropriate to appoint State counsel to cross-examine these two material witnesses nor put any question to them and passed the impugned order without any legal justification while ignoring the fact that accused is facing charge of capital offence. It is equally important to mention here that Article 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees legal aid to an arrested person. It says: "(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right of consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice." This constitutional right has been protected by the codified law. Section 340(1), Cr.P.C. statutorily recognizes the right of an accused to be defended. The said provision of law reads as under: "Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code in any such Court, may of right be defended by a pleader." This right of an accused of an offence entailing capital punishment is further elaborated under Chapter 24-C of Volume-III of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Rule (1) of the said Rules reads as under: "If the accused is unrepresented in a Sessions case and cannot afford to engage a counsel the Sessions Judge shall make arrangement to employ a counsel at Government expense. Counsel in such cases should be appointed well in time to enable him to study the documents mentioned in section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 4. The above provisions are crystal clear that a person arrested has a constitutional right to the services of a counsel, therefore, he must be given reasonable opportunity to engage a counsel and the counsel engaged must be given reasonable opportunity to defend him. The basic principle underlying this exercise appears to be that no one should be condemned unheard. Reference in this regard can be made to case law reported as Muhammad Yaseen alias Mithou and another v. The State 2010 PCr.LJ 1253 [Lahore]. When When seen in above context, the orders prima facie appears to be passed in sheer violation of law. On the basis of above said discussion, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that orders dated 16.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha are not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, same are hereby set-aside. As a sequel thereof, instant criminal revision is allowed and petitioner is afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine both the PWs. If his counsel did not appear to cross-examine the witnesses the trial court shall be at liberty to appoint counsel at State expenses to meet the requirement of law. JK/S-54/L Revision allowed.