2003 PLP 3128 (YLR)

Nemo for the Complainant. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 17‑11‑2001 and 9‑2‑2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he had dismissed two miscellaneous applications of the petitioner/accused. The latter application was dismissed on the ground that an identical application of the petitioner/accused had already been dismissed by the said learned Court on 27‑11‑2001 and under the law the said Court had no power to review the said order and even otherwise the record sought to be summoned can be produced in defence evidence, if so required.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner/ accused is facing trial in a murder case and the case is fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. It was averred that Register No.2 of Daily Roznamcha for the period from 13-1‑2000 to 28‑2‑2000 and Register No. 19 for the period from 14‑1‑2000 to 8‑2‑2000 of Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad were required for the purpose of cross‑examination of P.Ws. The other documents required by the petitioner/accused were:‑‑ (1) Copies of the statements recorded by Muhammad Hussain, S.‑I. on 14‑1‑2000. (2) Copy of the site inspection note recorded by the I.O. on 14‑1‑2000. (3) Copy of Karwai conducted by Rana Ahmad Hussain, D.S.P. on 14‑1‑2000. It was also averred that after the occurrence, three supplementary statements of the complainant were recorded by the police and the witnesses had got recorded different statements on different dates. It was prayed that the impugned orders dated 17‑11‑2001 and 9‑2‑2002 be set aside and the learned trial Court be ordered to summon the record as mentioned in the application of the petitioner and to provide the petitioner/accused proper chance for having a complete defence of the case.

3. Yesterday, Criminal Miscellaneous No.1014‑M of 2002 had been filed on behalf of the complainant, praying therein that the main criminal revision filed by the petitioner be decided and the complainant had no objection to accept the said revision petition keeping in view the provisions of section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. Today no one has turned up on behalf of the complainant. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.‑G. have been heard.

4. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed from both sides. The petitioner/accused has obviously the right under section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. to receive copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. and also the copy of the inspection note recorded by the Investigating Officer on his first visit to the place of occurrence and the note recorded by him on recoveries made, if any. Similarly the petitioner is also entitled to have a copy of the First Information Report and the Police, Report. Therefore, he can claim that before the commencement of trial, copies of statements of the witnesses whose statements were recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. during the course or investigation .be supplied to him, in addition to the copy of the inspection note recorded by the Investigating Officer on his first visit to the place of occurrence. So far as the question of summoning of record such as Register N0.2 of Daily Roznamcha for the period from 13‑1‑2000 to 28‑2‑2000 and Register No. 19 for the period 14‑1‑2000 to 8‑2‑2000 of Police Station, Nishatabad, Faisalabad, concerned, the same can be summoned for a specific date for the purpose of cross examination of any particular P.Ws. It is obvious that it is not the duty of the learned trial Court to supply to the petitioner/accused the copies of entries of the said Registers under section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. However, copies mentioned in para No.2 of this order, to the extent of copies of statements of witnesses recorded by different Investigating Officers in the course of investigation and also the copy of inspection note recorded by the Investigating Officer after his first visit to the place of occurrence can be obviously supplied to the petitioner. In that respect the learned trial Court, had wrongly declined the request of the petitioner and thus the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained.

5. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned orders dated 17‑11‑2001 and 9‑2‑2002 are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to supply the aforesaid copies to the petitioner/accused before the commencement of the trial and also to allow him to summon the relevant Registers of the Police Station (as mentioned above) for the purpose of cross‑examination of P.Ws. N.H.Q./M‑2067/L Revision accepted.