Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No.13 of 1987 decided on 9th February,1987.
‑‑‑Ss. 439 & 540‑‑Court‑witness, summoning of‑‑Sessions Judge, during trial of case, summoning two D.S.Ps as court‑witnesses‑‑D. S. Ps having verified investigation‑‑ Evidence of witnesses relevant to facts of case and not unnecessary‑‑Any Court rat any stage of enquiry, trial or proceedings, held, could summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance as witness, if evidence of such person would be essential to just decision of case‑‑No exception could be taken to impugned order, summoning witnesses‑‑Revision dismissed in limine.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan for Petitioner.
In brief the facts of this case are that Muhammad Ayub petitioner and others are being prosecuted in a case under sections 302, 307, 452, 149, 148, P.P.C. for the alleged murder of Mst. Gahran and for murderous assault on Mst. Anaran and other witnesses. The trial is pending before learned Sessions Judge Chakwal. It is stated at the Bar that more than 10 witnesses including some of the eye‑witnesses have already been examined during the trial.
2. On 21‑12‑1986 Muhammad Razzaq complainant through Assistant District Attorney filed an application before the 'learned trial Judge with a request that Ch. Ahmad Khan Padhar D.S.P. and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti D.S.P. who also had investigated the case be summoned as witnesses. This application was placed before the: learned trial Judge who on 19‑1‑1987 ordered that both the D.S.Ps be summned for 31‑1‑1987 as court‑witnesses. Hence this revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who raised only two points in support of this petition: firstly that the order, dated 19‑1‑1987 was passed by learned Sessions Judge Chakwal without any notice to the accused and secondly these two Police Officers were not cited as witnesses in the challan and as such could not be summoned by the lower Court. I have considered these contentions.
It is correct that the impugned order doer not indicate as to whether any notice of the application for summoning these police officers was given to the accused or not. The application was filed on 21‑12‑1986 and the impugned order was passed on 19‑1‑1987. It, therefore, appears that the accused were informed of this application verbally by the lerned trial Judge during proceedings of the trial., Be that as it may, I have asked the learned counsel to argue the case can merits considering it a notice of the said application. It was contended by the learned counsel that these two police officers were not cited as witnesses in the challan and secondly that their evidence would be just to contradict the statement of the Investigating Officer Irshad Haider Tarar and as such the said officers should not have been summoned as court‑witnesses because it would amount to filling in the lacuna in the prosecution case which is likely to prejudice the case of the accused during trial. I have considered the detailed arguments of learned counsel. The trial Court had a right to summon any one as court‑witness under section 540, Cr. P. C . It is not disputed by the learned counsel that these police officers had verified the investigation of the case. It, therefore, could not be said that the two D.S.Ps had no connection with the investigation of the case or that: they were unnecessary witnesses or that their evidence was not relevant to the facts of the case. According to section 540 Cr.P.C. any Court may, at any stage of the enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and re‑examine any person already examined if the evidence of such person appears to the Court essential to the just decision of the case. This section gives wide powers to Court to summon any person as court‑witness. In view of this no exception can be taken to the impugned order, dated 19‑1‑1987. The accused will have all rights to cross‑examine these witnesses and if necessary lead evidence in defence according to l". In view of the above I find, no merit in 'this petition which is dismissed in limine.
S. A. /M‑24/L Dismissed in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer