2009 PLP 980 (MLD)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

The petitioner is facing trial under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. in case FI.R. No.278, registered on 4-11-2004 at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur. The learned trial Judge framed the charge, on 8-7-2005. At the request of the petitioner (accused) Mr. Mehboob Alam Bhutta, Advocate was appointed to defend him at the State expense. The learned counsel on next date did not turn up and the Court then appointed Rana Attique Ahmad, Advocate after taking consent of the accused to defend him at State expense. On 3-8-2006 Rana Muhammad Arif, advocate filed his power of attorney on behalf of the accused/petitioner. His thumb impression was attested by the Court. The P.Ws. were cross-examined on behalf of the accused/petitioner. However, on 11-9-2007 the petitioner moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. praying that Javed Iqbal (P.W.2), Muhammad Din (P.W.3), Muhammad Ayub (P.W.7) and Nazir Ahmad, Draftsman (P.W.8) be re--called so that they could be further cross--examined on his behalf because Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocate had only two years standing at the bar and thus lacked the requisite acumen to conduct session cases. This application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, by order, dated 10-7-2008 which has been sought to be challenged in the present criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record appended to the criminal revision.

3. I find that challan in this case was submitted on 28-12-2004 and charge was framed on 8-7-2005. Thereafter, the trial remained in doldrums. On the direction of the Court, copy of the statement of Javed Iqbal, P.W.2. and that Muhammad Din, P.W.3 have been placed on record. Both these P.Ws. appear to have been incisively cross-examined. There may be no doubt on the expertise exhibited by the learned cross -examiner. If I could say, the petitioner is trying to shelve the efforts of the Court to conclude trial.

4. The provisions of section 540, Cr.P.C. have two parts. First part is discretionary while second is mandatory. The first part relates to the powers of the Court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness. The second part relates to its powers to re-call and re-examine any person already examined provided his evidence appears "essential to the just decision of the case". The words written in quotations, are the key words. In the present case I am not satisfied that at this stage re-calling of the aforementioned P.Ws. for further cross-examination would in any manner be in quest of justice. Conversely, it appears that the petitioner is making all efforts to arrest progress in trial. In my opinion, the impugned order, dated 10-7-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, is quite reasonable and proper on all fours. The same does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition cannot but be and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./L-9/L Petition dismissed.