1986 PLP 1215 (MLD)

Abdul Ghafoor v. The State and 2 others P L D 1983 Lah. 139- Rasheed Ahmad v. The State P L D 1971 S C 709 and Muhammad Azarn v. Muhammad Iqbal and others P L D 1984 S C 95 rel. Zahid Marghoob for Applicant. Mir Maqsood Ali for Respondents. A.K. Jatoi for the State. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1986. A complaint under section 465/467/471/34, P.P.C.was filed which is being tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The statements of the witnesses on behalf of the complainant have been recorded and complainant's side was closed on 24‑7‑1984. Thereafter, an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was moved on 29‑7‑1984 by the complainant for the production of record and proceedings of rent case, which was disposed of by the Rent Controller, Karachi. In the application it has been stated that the record can be produced by the Reader of the Court of the said Rent Controller. This application was allowed by the learned trial Judge and it has been stated in the order that the production of the original receipt in the record is necessary so that the same be put to the accused in their examination under section 342, Cr.P. C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that photo copies of the statements are already on record and the complainant has closed his side. Thereafter, an application was moved by the complainant and the same was allowed which, under the law, cannot be allowed. He has referred to section 540, Cr.P.C. which provides that any Court, at any stage, of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re‑examine any person already examined or recalled and re‑examined." According to the learned counsel photo copies of the statements are already on record and complainant failed to produce the original receipts Burin the course of trial. The complainant is debarred to make such application and the Court committed an error in allowing this application. The learned counsel has referred the case of Saleem Ahmed Naseer v . The State reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 1078 wherein it is stated that "the power can be exercised to know about something which has not already come on record, due to the failure of either party or due to the reasons beyond the control of any of the parties, or on account of something which has come to light during trial." In (his case witnesses were called for re‑examination who have already been examined and were declared hostile. In such facts the above observation has been made. In a case of Rehmat v. The State reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 1345 it has been observed that "interest of justice does not mean to provide an opportunity to one party and place other in a disadvantageous position". In the same case it has been further observed that if a Court after coming to decision that some evidence or witness has been left whose examination is material for safe dispensation of justice examines person as court witness or allows piece of evidence to be brought on records, court should provide an opportunity to accused to rebut brought on record as a result of statement of Court witness or fresh evidence brought on record". The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the case of Abdul Ghafoor v. The State and 2 others reported in P L D 1983 Lah. 139 wherein it has been observed that "the duty of Court to discovery of truth for arriving at a just decision, Court ought to make maximum endeavour for". In` the same case it has been further observed that "the purpose of judicial proceedings is to find out truth and to arrive at a correct decision". In the case of Rashid Ahmed v. The State reported in P L D 1971 S C 709, it has been observed that "the Court is competent to take additional evidence under section 540, Cr.P.C. even after both sides have closed their evidence". The case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others reported in P L D 1984 S C 95 also support the contention of the counsel for the respondent. Mr. A . K . Jatoi appearing on behalf of the State has also supported the order impugned in this case. Section 540, Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in the interest of justice and the Court has power to examine a witness, or recall or re‑examine a witness which is necessary for just decision of the case. No prejudice would be caused to the accused. He would have fair chance to cross‑examine the witness and lead evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge has exercised the jurisdiction fairly and justly and which is in the interest of justice. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed. H.A.K. Revision dismissed.