2001 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2000 MLD 244 ref. Qazi Misbah‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner. Mian Abbas for Respondents. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby, application of the petitioner filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. for summoning Irshad Ahmad father of Mst. Nusrat Irshad abductee and the complainant (now dead) was made.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of registration of the F.I.R. Irshad Ahmad had accompanied Mst. Nusrat Irshad his daughter for the registration of the case, that he had joined the investigation, that girl was also recovered by him alongwith others, that learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot was wrong in not allowing the application of the petitioner for the just decision of the case. He has relied upon 2000 MLD Lah. 244.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that application submitted by Irshad Ahmad petitioner before the trial Court shows that no reason was given by him for summoning him as a Court witness except that he had stated that he would like to submit some writ petitions, that prosecution evidence has been concluded, that only statement of accused is to be recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and this matter is pending for the last six months.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, according to the impugned order Irshad Ahmad petitioner was never joined in the investigation, his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was never recorded, he was not cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses, application was given on 30‑10‑2000 although the case was registered on 5‑4‑1997. I have also gone through my own judgment which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e. 2000 MLD 244 titled as Muhammad Rafique v. The State. In view of the abovesaid judgment I dispose of this petition with the direction to learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot that he should go through the case diaries, if he comes to the conclusion that P, Irshad Ahmad present petitioner was joined in the investigation and interrogated during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer but due to some inadvertence or negligence, the Investigating Officer did not record his statement then Irshad Ahmad present petitioner can be summoned as a Court‑witness. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order shall be communicated to learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot I before 2‑5‑2001 because case is fixed there for 3‑5‑2001. Copy of this order shall also be given to the parties Dasti and they shall also produce the same before the said learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot. N.H.Q./I‑49/L Order accordingly.