Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1985, decided on 21st May, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 439 6 540‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(1) (d)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 181/34 & 109‑‑Summoning of witnesses‑‑Prayer of petitioner to summon five witnesses, when case fixed for judgment, refused by Special Judge‑‑Entire evidence recorded and record of lower Court containing original documents placed before Special Judge‑‑Summoning of further evidence within discretion of Special Judge‑‑Refusal of Special Judge to summon witnesses when case fixed for judgment, held, proper exercise of discretion‑‑Revision against order of refusal dismissed.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Revision‑‑Application for revision, held, could only be entertained when any patent illegality, irregularity, or error of jurisdiction pointed out.

M.M.K. Zai for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 21st May, 1985.

This criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order, dated 9th May, 1985 of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption (Provincial), Karachi, whereby he dismissed the application filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. by applicant for summoning five witnesses.

The petitioner is complainant in a case under section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with 448, 181/34, 109, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Special Judge since 1981. The evidence has been recorded and arguments were heard. The case was fixed for judgment when respondent /accused, Azizuddin, filed an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. and Clerk of civil Court was summoned and he produced certified copy of Exh.22. Complainant also filed an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed.

Mr. M.M.K. Zai, Advocate, appearing for petitioner, contended that learned Judge has not allowed to cross‑examine the Clerk of the civil court, who produced copy of Exh. 22. His contention is that true of document so produced is forged one. Mr. Zai submitted that in view of the latest development it is necessary to examine more witnesses as such application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was filed which has wrongly been dismissed.

The case is pending since 1981 and entire evidence has been recorded. The learned Special Judge in his order has mentioned that record of lower Court containing the original document has been placed before him and Exh. 22 is copy from the record of lower Court. He has, therefore, taken view that in these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine any witness on this point. The entire case is before the learned Special Judge, who can take note of this point raised by the applicant while deciding the case. It is a discretion of the Judge to summon any further evidence. In my view, he has exercised; his discretion properly in refusing to summon five witnesses when case is fixed for judgment. This is revision application, which could only be entertained when any patent illegality, irregularity or error of jurisdiction is pointed out.

I do not find any merit in this revision and impugned order calls for no interference. This revision application is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.