1989 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Words and phrases‑‑ ‑‑‑All witnesses'‑‑Meaning. Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan and Iltaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners. Nafeez Ahmad Ansari, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988. This revision petition has been filed by Haq Nawaz, etc., against the order, dated 11‑10‑1988, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, refusing to supply copes of the statements of Mansab Ali and Mistri Muhammad Shaaban, recorded by S.I. Rana Muhammad Akram (P.W.11), the Investigating Officer, and D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif during the investigation of murder case F.I.R. No. 57, dated 6‑6‑1987 Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Sahiwal, and declining to summon D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif as court‑witness and to recall Mansab Ali P.W. for further cross‑examination.

2. Briefly the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners were accused of murder at Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Sahiwal. The case was investigated by S.I. Rana Muhammad Akram and D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif. The petitioners were ultimately challaned under sections 148, 302/149, P.P.C. and are presently facing trial accordingly in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. Evidence of eleven prosecution witnesses has been recorded. Mansab Ali appeared as P.W. 4 and S.I. Rana Muhammad Akram as P.W.11. S.I. Rana Muhammad Akram during cross‑examination admitted that statements of Mistri Muhammad Shaaban and Mansab Ali P.Ws. were recorded by D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif wherein Mansab Ali stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence while Mistri Muhammad Shaaban claimed to be present at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances, petitioners' counsel applied for supplying copies of statements of Mansab Ali and Mistri Muhammad Shaaban recorded during investigation and further prayed that Mansab Ali (complainant) be recalled for re‑cross‑examination with reference to his statement recorded by D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif and that Muhammad Sharif be called as court‑witness to prove that statement. Learned Presiding Officer declined the prayer observing that it was too late to ask for supplying the copies of statements of aforementioned witnesses and that non -supply of the copes `would have no effect on the case'. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate‑General and also perused the record.

4. It is clearly mentioned in sections 241‑A and 265‑C of the Cr.P.C., that the accused has a right to get copies of the statements of all witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., not less than seven days before the commencement of the trial. The words `all witnesses' occurring in the said provisions have been interpreted in various cases by superior Courts. Reference may be made to State v. Gaman Khan and others P L D 1966 B.J. 30 and Ch. Noor Muhammad v. State 1969 P Cr. L J 568 in this connection. In the former case, while interpreting the provision of section 251‑A, Cr.P.C., (which is para I materia with sections 241‑A and 265‑C, Cr.P.C., it was held that the term all witnesses' occurring in the section cannot be taken to mean only witnesses called for prosecution. Therefore, no matter that Mistri Muhammad Shaaban has not been cited as P.W. by the prosecution, the accused/petitioners are entitled as a matter of right to get copies of his statement as well as that of Mansab Ali P.W. recorded by D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif during the investigation. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to supply copies of the statements of aforesaid witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., during investigation. Resultantly, Mansab Ali P.W. shall be recalled for cross‑examination by the petitioners learned counsel. Likewise examination of D.S.P. Muhammad Sharif as court‑witness is also essential in the circumstances, who, if so desired by the parties, would be cross‑examined. The revision petition is allowed in the terms indicated above. M.A.K./H‑90/L Petition allowed.