25/08/2025, 23:22 2022 M L D 1331

2022 M L D 1331
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Farooq Haider, J
MUHAMMAD SHAHID YOUSAF---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and others---Respondents
Criminal Revision No.38 of 2021, decided on 1st February, 2021.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.344---Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings---Imposition of costs---
Scope---While interpreting a provision of law, approach is to be dynamic,
purposive and meaningful, while also keeping in view of prevailing circumstances,
need of the time, challenges being faced and to be faced in future and of
administration of justice, therefore, words "on such terms" used in S.344 of Cr.P.C.
are not without any significance and can be safely interpreted as including
power/authority to impose costs while granting adjournment and such power may
be considered as inherent in the Court for safe administration of justice, otherwise,
aforementioned words would become redundant; it goes without saying that such
interpretation will enhance the cause of justice, minimize unnecessary
adjournments and save the system of administration of justice.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----S.133---Order of examinations---Cross-examination---Absence of counsel---
Cross-examination by accused---Scope---Where accused had not produced his
counsel for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, then it was appropriate for
the Trial Court to ask the accused to cross-examine the witnesses himself, and in
case of refusal by accused, to cross-examine the witnesses itself, instead of the
closing right of cross-examining the witnesses.
Sheikh Jamshed Hayat for Petitioner.
Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General, on Court's call.
ORDER
FAROOQ HAIDER, J.----Through instant revision petition filed under Section
435, Cr.P.C. read with Section 439, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Shahid Yousaf (petitioner/
accused) has challenged the vires of order dated: 19.01.2021 passed by learned
Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, whereby costs of Rs.10,000/- was imposed
upon present petitioner and vires of order dated: 26.01.2021 passed by said learned
Court, whereby right of cross-examination of the accused/petitioner over PW-1 to
PW-5, was closed; relevant portion of impugned order dated: 19.01.2021 is hereby
reproduced: -
"On first call in the morning before 11:00 am learned counsel for the accused
Shahid Yousaf request for keeping the case pending and time was fixed as

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2022L2572 1/5
25/08/2025, 23:22 2022 M L D 1331

12:30 pm but at 12:30 pm learned counsel for the accused did not appear
and accused requests for keeping the case pending till 01:30 pm learned
counsel for the accused has not put up appearance now it is 02:00 pm now
Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Advocate has put up appearance on behalf of learned
counsel for the accused and request for an adjournment, which is
vehemently opposed from the other side. This is a direction case, however in
the interest of justice subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the
accused Shahid Yousaf to the complainant. Last opportunity is given to the
accused to get cross examine the PWs. PWs Muhammad Amjad, Fahad,
Iqbal, Allah Ditta and Hafiz Ashfaq present in the court are bound down for
26.01.2021."
Similarly, relevant portion of impugned order dated: 26.01.2021 is also reproduced
for ready reference: -
"PWs Muhammad Amjad PW-2, Fahad PW-3, Iqbal PW-4, Allah Ditta PW-5 and
Hafiz Ashfaq PW-1 are present. Today, last opportunity was given to the
accused persons to cross examine the above said PWs subject to payment of
cost of Rs.10,000/- but accused persons have neither paid the cost nor their
learned counsel has turned up. Therefore, the right of cross examination of
the accused on PW-1 to PW-5 is hereby closed."
2. Brief facts leading to instant criminal revision are that petitioner is an accused
in case arising out of FIR No.02/2019 dated: 08.01.2019 registered: under Sections
420, 467, 468, 109, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 at Police Station A.C.E., District: Khanewal; he filed petition for grant of
post-arrest bail before august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition
No.737-L of 2020, which was allowed vide order dated: 04.08.2020, however,
direction was issued for conclusion of trial of the accused (petitioner) by the end of
year 2020; relevant Paragraph No.5 of said order is hereby reproduced: -
"5. Petitioner/appellant shall not leave the country without the permission of the
learned trial court. Since charge has already been framed, therefore, the
learned trial court seized of the matter is directed to expedite the
proceedings of trial and ensure its conclusion positively by the end of this
year (2020). It is made clear that if the appellant misuses the concession of
bail or any delay in the conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else
acting on his behalf, the learned trial court shall be competent to recall the
bail granting order. Of course, after hearing the parties, strictly in
accordance with law."
Learned trial court, during trial of the case, when observed that cross-examination
over PWs is not being made, then imposed costs vide order dated: 19.01.2021
(mentioned above) and thereafter when cross-examination was not made on
26.01.2021, closed right of cross-examination over PW-1 to PW-5 (mentioned
above).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both impugned orders
(mentioned above) are against the facts of the case and relevant law on the subject;
also adds that next date of hearing before learned trial court is fixed for tomorrow

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2022L2572 2/5
25/08/2025, 23:22 2022 M L D 1331

i.e. 02.02.2021; finally prays for setting-aside both aforementioned impugned

orders while providing an opportunity of right of cross-examination to the
petitioner/accused over PW-1 to PW-5.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while opposing aforementioned
contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, has supported both
impugned orders (mentioned above).
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Now a days, getting frequent adjournments by the concerned parties, during
trial of the case, has become very common, which causes unnecessary delay in
conclusion of the trial and is alarming, therefore, same invites immediate attention
and requires proper measures because it is settled principle of law that "justice
delayed is justice denied"; provision dealing with adjournment of criminal trial is
Section 344, Cr.P.C. and relevant portion of the same is hereby reproduced: -
"344. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- - (1) If, from the absence of a
witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to
postpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial, the Court
may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor from
time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for
such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the
accused if in custody:
(emphasis added)
It is well settled that at the time of interpreting a provision of law, approach is to be
kept as dynamic, purposive and meaningful, while also keeping in view prevailing
circumstances, need of the time, challenges being faced and to be faced in future
and of course "safe administration of justice", therefore, words "on such terms
(mentioned above)" used in Section 344, Cr.P.C. is not without any significance and
can be safely interpreted as including power/authority to impose costs while
granting adjournment and such power may be considered as inherent in the Court
for safe administration of justice, otherwise, aforementioned words would become
redundant; it goes without saying that such interpretation will enhance the cause of
justice, minimize unnecessary adjournment and save the system of administration
of justice. Hence, impugned order dated: 19.01.2021 qua imposing costs of
Rs.10,000/- in the case is justified in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
however, said amount is hereby reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/-.
As far as order dated: 26.01.2021 qua closing right of cross-examination of the
accused/petitioner over PW-1 to PW-5, is concerned, suffice it to say that when on
26.01.2021, accused did not produce counsel for cross-examining the witnesses,
then it was appropriate for learned trial court to ask accused persons for cross-
examining the witnesses themselves and in case of refusal by accused persons, to
cross-examine the witnesses itself instead of closing right of cross-examining the
witnesses, therefore, for safe administration of justice, one opportunity is granted to
the accused persons for cross-examining the PW-1 to PW-5 themselves or through
their learned counsel on the next date of hearing before learned trial court,
otherwise, on said date, learned trial court shall cross-examine said PWs itself and

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2022L2572 3/5
25/08/2025, 23:22 2022 M L D 1331

further proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. With these
observations, instant revision petition stands disposed of.
7. Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench shall convey order of this Court to
the learned trial court through fax, immediately.
SA/M-126/L Case remanded.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2022L2572 4/5
25/08/2025, 23:22 2022 M L D 1331

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2022L2572 5/5