1997SCMR513 (PLP)

(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑12‑1993 passed in Crl. R.No.730/1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.540‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Complainant had made an application under 5.540, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for permission to produce some documents when the prosecution had closed its evidence and the statement of accused under 5.342, Cr.P.C. was to be recorded‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the said application with the observation that the case was hanging fire for the past 16 years and at no stage the complainant deemed it necessary to apply for additional evidence and also that the documents sought to be produced by him would not be of any help to him unless some evidence was led to prove the identity of the scribe which would mean starting the trial all over again‑‑‑High Court being satisfied with the reasoning of Trial Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Trial Court, held, was perfectly justified in disallowing the complainant's request for additional evidence and High Court had rightly refused to interfere with that order‑‑‑No infirmity factual, legal or jurisdictional in the impugned orders could be pointed out which in fact were unexceptionable‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. ‑‑‑[Evidence]. Mian Sher Alam, Advocate instructed by Syed Abid Nawaz, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1995. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ‑‑‑Petitioner, a complainant in an anti corruption case, has filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑12‑1993 whereby his revision petition directed against the dismissal of his application under section 540, Cr.P.C., moved for permission to produce certain documents, was dismissed.

2. Facts stated in the impugned judgment, which have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that in a case registered in the year 1977, challan was submitted before a Magistrate, who held the trial, but it was noticed at some stage that the Special Judge, Anticorruption, had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Case was, therefore, transferred to the file of the Special Judge. Prosecution had cited six witnesses in all, two were given up and the remaining were examined in 1992. It was at the close of the prosecution case that the petitioner made an application under section 540, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court for permission to produce some documents. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court with the observation that the case is hanging fire for the past 16 years and at no stage, the petitioner deemed it necessary to apply for additional evidence and he moved the application only when the prosecution had closed its evidence and the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., was to be recorded. Trial Court also took note of the fact that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner would not be of any help to him unless some evidence was led to prove the identity of the ascribe, which would mean starting the trial all over again. Learned Judge in the High Court was satisfied with the reasoning of the Trial Court and, therefore, he declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that on the facts stated hereinabove which have not been controverted, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in disallowing the petitioner's request for additional evidence. High Court rightly refused to interfere with that order. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity, factual, legal or jurisdictional, in the impugned orders, which in fact are unexceptionable. This petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused. N.H.Q./G‑565/S Leave refused.