2006 PLP 1558 (YLR)

RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.--Arguments have been heard.

2. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that this be treated as a Pacca case and hence this petition has been treated as a Pacca case and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in case F.I.R. No.303/2004 registered on 18-8-2004 in Police Station, City Mianwali, under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. and are facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. On 2-6-2005, they filed an application under section 265-C, Cr. P.C. before the learned trial Court stating therein that during the investigation of the case the I.O. had recorded statements of a large number of witnesses. However, copies of the statements of those witnesses have not been supplied to them. It was thus requested by them'titat the copies of the statements of all witnesses whose statements were recorded by the I.O. during investigation be supplied to them, under section 265-C, Cr. P.C. After hearing the arguments the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order,dated 2-6-2005 dismissed the said petition with the observation that the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have already been provided to the accused at the beginning of the trial and that the statements of the witnesses who had appeared before the I.O. during the investigation could not be supplied to the accused as their statements do not fall within the ambit of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and that the accused have filed the application only to create hurdle in the way of trial and that the application filed by them is without justification, unfounded and baseless and hence the same was declined. Aggrieved of the impugned order, dated 2-6-2005 the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. The question of supplying copies of statements of witnesses to the accused was decided by an Honourable Full Bench of this Court and the judgment was reported as Muhammad Riaz and others v. The State PLD 2003 Lahore

290. In view of the principle enunciated in the aforesaid authority the trial Court is bound to supply copies of statements of all witnesses, whether cited or not, as envisaged by section 265-C(1)(c), Cr.P.C. In the light of the aforesaid authority the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is clearly erroneous and as such is liable to be set aside.

6. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dated 2-6-2005 whereby he had dismissed the application of the petitioners is set aside, the application of the petitioners filed before the learned trial Court under section 265-C, Cr.P,C. is accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to supply to the petitioners copies of statements of all witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. in the course of investigation, irrespective of the fact whether they have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the calendar attached to the challan or not. H.B.T./N-20/L Revision accepted.