2006 PLP 2872 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Bashir Ahmad son of Ghulam Sarwar, the petitioner, by filing this criminal revision challenges the order dated 17-4-2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaranwala. ?

2. The brief facts constituting background of this case are that the petitioner is the complainant in case F.I.R. No.637 dated 29-9-2002 registered with Police Station, Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. The trial in the case is being conducted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaranwala. Muhammad Akram (respondent No.1) is one of the nominated accused and is facing trial along with his other co-accused. As many as fifteen prosecution witnesses had been recorded when or 8-4-2006 Muhammad Akram (respondent No.1) moved an application to the learned trial Court under section 540, Cr.P.C. praying that Rasheed Ahmad Tahir, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station, Khurrianwala and Allah Yar Inspector/ Investigating Officer whose names exist in the calendar or witnesses at Serial Nos. 21 and 20 respectively and who had been giver up by the prosecution be summoned as Court witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties ordered for summoning of both the aforesaid individuals as Court witnesses. 1 is the said order which has been challenged by means of this revision petition.

3. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Din Ansari, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is also Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Shami, Advocate for the State.

4. It is not denied that both the witnesses who have been summoned by the learned trial Court feature or, the calendar of witnesses. In fact Allah Yar, Inspector had investigated the case whereas Rasheed Ahmad Tahir, Inspector/S.H.O. had prepared and submitted the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17-4-2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaranwala shows that he had given elaborate reasons for summoning the said witnesses. Section 540, Cr.P.C. is intended to enable the Courts to get at the truth and the mere fact that some important witnesses have been giver up by the prosecution will not absolve the former from the said responsibility. The Courts of law ought not to leave themselves to the mercy of the parties. Section 540 ibid confers wide discretionary powers on the trial Courts to summon any witness at any stage of trial. While exercising powers under the said section all that the Courts are required to ensure is that the evidence of the witness who has been summoned will have some bearing on determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any feature of the case whereby it could be said that discretion exercised by the trial Court was absurd, arbitrary or fanciful. The mere fact that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on a previous occasion had turned down the plea of the co-accused to summon two persons as Court witnesses under section

540. Cr.P.C. was by itself no reason to turn down the subsequent application of respondent No.1 as well. The reasons which had prevailed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in turning down the application of the o-accused Faryad Ahmad, Magsead Ahmad and Azizaa Bibi vide his order dated 6-2-2002 which is Annex-'C' have also been perused and have been found to be sound and cogent.

7. Resultantly this petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./B-24/L ???????????????? Petition dismissed.