1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Against the order, dated 6-4-2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 11-1-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 38, Multan accepting the application of respondent No.1 Gulzar Ahmad under section 540, Cr.P.C. For summoning of Muhammad Muazam Khan as progecution witness in a complaint case titled Gulzar Ahmad v. Abdul Rashid and others under sections 458/380/440/337-H(0506/1481149, P.P.C. Police Station Delhi Gate, Multan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by respondent No.1 wherein it was pleaded that witnesses who were cited in complaint case and gist of evidence had been won over by the prosecution hence he intended to produce Muhammad Muazzam as P.W.
2. That learned Judicial Magistrate without any legal jurisdiction allowed his application and granted him permission to.Produce said witness in the witness-box that said Muhammad Mauzam was neither cited in complaint nor in the gist of evidence hence, the impugned order is not in accordance with law as respondent No.1 was duty bound to provide the names of witnesses in the complaint as well as gist of evidence. Further submits that respondent No.1 filed application for summoning the witnesses only on the ground that prior to filing a complaint criminal case F.I.R.
3. No.288 of 2002, dated 7-12-2002 was registered on the same facts by him at Police Station Delhi Gate, Multan and at the time of registration of case Muhammad Muazzam Khan was with him and the learned trial Court has not adopted the law in complaint case as warranted by relevant section of complaint.
4. 3.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record. Respondent No.1 moved an application in a complaint case for summoning of Muhammad Muazam as a witness alleging therein that the witnesses already cited in the gist of evidence namely Abdul Razaq and Ashfaq P.Ws. 3 and 2 respectively had become collusive with accused hence may be allowed to - produce Muhammad Muazzam as a P.W. Under section 540, Cr.P.C. a Court enjoys wide powers to summon a person as witness at any stage whose statement appears to be essential for just decision of the case. Section 540, Cr.P.C. Is re-produced as under:-- "Power to summon material witness or examine person present.--Any Court may 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 re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re- examine any such person of his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case."
5. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by examining Muhammad Moazzam Khan as P.W. In the evidence of respondent No.1/complainant as the petitioner and other co-accused will have a right to cross-examine the said P.W. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned orders. No illegality has been found in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. Instant petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine.