2005 PLP 2436 (YLR)

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby the application of the petitioner for summoning of the Resident Editors of Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Daily Jang, Daily Ausaf, Daily Khabrain and Nia Dowr as Court witnesses was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that on the statement of the complainant Muhammad Akram, a case was registered against the petitioner under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. at Police Station, New Multan District Multan, in which two persons, namely, Muhammad Aslam brother of the complainant and Mst. Haseena mother of the petitioner, were murdered. The learned trial Court had examined the witnesses who were in favour of the deceased Muhammad Aslam. The prosecution had given up the witnesses who were in favour of the deceased Mst. Haseena. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for summoning them as Court witnesses but the learned trial Court accepted the application to the extent of Mst. Shazia, Muhammad Latil' and Muhammad Hanif but dismissed the same to the extent of Resident Editors of the newspapers mentioned in the application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence had taken place on 29-6-2003 and in the newspapers Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Daily Jang, Daily Ausaf, Daily Khabrain and Nia Dowr dated 30-6-2003 there were photographs of the petitioner and he was shown arrested by the police constable duly handcuffed with the weapon of offence lying before the petitioner but the police had shown the arrest of the petitioner on 19-7-2003 and as such, the above mentioned newspapers belie the contention of the police and that the learned trial Court while not summoning the Resident Editors of the above-mentioned newspapers had not given weight to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others 2001 SCMR 308.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and has vehemently opposed the revision.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. For disposal of this revision, it is necessary to reproduce section 540, Cr.P.C. which is as under:-- "Power to summon material witness or examine person present:

stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Court, 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; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case." This section has two parts; in the first one the discretion lies with the Court to examine or not to examine any person as a witness but according to second part of the section the Court is bound to examine any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case irrespective of the fact that any party had requested for it or not.

7. This case relates to the first part of the said section because calling of additional evidence is not conditioned on the defence or prosecution making application for this purpose but it is the duty of the Court to do complete justice between the parties. The learned trial Court exercised its discretion and observed rightly that if the practice of summoning of Editors and Reporters was allowed, then in each case the newspaper Editors and Reporters would have to be summoned and it would cause delay in disposal of the case. Even otherwise the Authority cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates to identification parade and in the present case there is no matter of any identification parade, hence the present proposition can easily be differential with the case-law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In view of the above circum stances, this revision is dismissed. H.B.T./T-91/L Revision dismissed.