2005 PLP 51 (YLR)

Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate. Petitioner Nadeem Wali through the instant petition has called in question the order dated 27-10-2004 passed by Ch. Ghulam Rasool, learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.IV, Lahore whereby he has turned down his application for summoning Malik Bashir-ud-Din and Habib Ahmad Malik, P.Ws. as defence witnesses through the Court.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is facing trial before the said court in case F.I.R, No.55, dated 5-2-2001 under sections 365-A and 109/34 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore.

3. The above named two persons were examined as P.Ws. in the case. The case is now at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner had moved the above mentioned application to the learned trial Court for summoning them as defence witnesses through the process of the Court. The learned trial Court has declined his such request.

4. He having felt himself aggrieved of the same has come to this Court with the instant petition.

5. It has been argued on his behalf that some clarification is to be sought by examining these prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses and hence, their re examination was necessary and they, therefore, ought to have been summoned through the process of the Court but the same erroneously has been declined by the learned trial Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made on his behalf and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.

7. As said above that the case is now at the stage of final arguments. The next date in the case is tomorrow for the above purpose.

8. The above mentioned persons were examined as prosecution witnesses in the case. It was quite some time back. The petitioner in his application made for the purpose has not mentioned that what necessity arose to him to re-examine them as defence witnesses. He while could seek clarification from them when they were in the witness-box, if he at all had wanted to do so. This but was not done at that juncture. There is no explanation for the same by his side. However, this is not understandable that why it was not done so when these witnesses were available to him for the purposes of cross-examination on them. We have gone through his application made for the purpose. The same is absolutely silent that why he intended to recall them now. It has only been mentioned that they may be summoned in the interest of justice. The justice is to be done even handedly. It should not lean in favour of one side. It's scale rather, should weigh equally to ail the sides. Hence, we have no hesitation in saying that the application of the petitioner made for the purpose was vague and did not contain any G reason for re-summoning the above mentioned P.Ws. as the defence witnesses. It has also been found that the petitioner even on an earlier occasion had made a similar prayer to the learned trial Court by way of an application under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with section 540, Cr.P.C. for re summoning these P.Ws. and one Suleman with the assertion that Habib Ahmad (P.W.10) had borrowed an amount of Rs.30,0000 from him in London in presence of P.Ws. Malik Bashir-ud-Din and Suleman Khan and the present case is meant to usurp that amount and so he needed clarification from these P.Ws. His said application was turned down by the learned trial Court vide the order dated 29-4-2004. He in a very crafty manner again has made the similar prayer by way of the second application under discussion requesting to re-summon those persons as defence witnesses through the process of the Court. The learned trial Court but did not find any justification in doing so. It has turned down his such request vide the impugned order as said above. This was absolutely a correct action in the matter. It is because of the fact that had the petitioner been so genuinely interested in getting clarification of the above point from the said P.Ws., he could do so easily when they had entered the witness-box. The evidence of these P.Ws. was recorded long back. The petitioner's request to recall them for the purpose H seems in fact to accomplish his hidden intention to delay the conclusion of the trial by one way or the other.

9. It is sorry to note that the case was registered in February, 2001. The Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 has prescribed a period for disposal of such-like cases. It has abnormally been delayed, for which there seems no apparent justification. The application under discussion of the petitioner seems an effort on his part to achieve that object. The learned trial Court this time was well at guard in not allowing him to do so.

10. It is to be mentioned here that unnecessarily prolonged trial in a way defeats the ends of justice. The second petition, thus has justifiably been turned down. There is, thus no case for interference with the impugned order in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The instant petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.

11. The learned trial Court is, however, directed not to allow any unnecessary adjournment and dispose of the case within quickest dispatch keeping in view of the time frame prescribed by the Act supra. H.B.T./N-129/L Petition dismissed.