' Petitioner Fida Hussain and others through the instant revision petition have called in question the order dated 1-9-2004 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar to the extent of refusal by him of the copies of the witnesses examined in defence.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the petitioners are accused in case F.I.R. No,105 dated 18-4-2004 under sections 302/324 read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Sadar Bhakkar. They moved an application on 26-8-2004, to the learned trial Court for supply of copies of documents of the certain witnesses examined in their defence during the investigation on 14-5-2004 and 2-6-2004 by Javed Iqbal, D.S.P. (Investigation), Bhakkar.
3. The learned Additional' Sessions Judge vide the impugned order has ordered to supply required copies of the statements of the witnesses except of those examined in their defence. According to him, they are not entitled to the same in view of the case of Ahmad Hassan and 2 others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 629 Lahore.
4. The petitioners feeling themselves aggrieved of the impugned order to that extent have brought the instant petition.
5. It has been argued on their behalf that they are entitled to get the copies of the statement of the witnesses examined during the investigation in their defence but they have been denied the same.
In this regard reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Riaz and another v. State PLD 2003 Lahore 290.
6. Learned Additional Advocate-General has conceded to the above contention.
7. I, therefore, have been left with no option but to accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order to the above extent.
8. It may be mentioned here that the learned Full Bench in the above cited case has held that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation examines all such persons, who from the information given to them or otherwise, appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and if the examination of such persons discloses that they had direct or indirect knowledge of the fact regarding which they are being examined, they are to be treated as "witnesses" because their testimony is operational.
9. It has not been disputed that the persons, the copies of whose statements are required by the petitioners have been examined during the investigation. It has also not been denied that they had direct or indirect knowledge of the fact of which they had made statements during the investigation. They, therefore, could be termed as witnesses as per the principle mentioned above.
10. The above esteemed judgment of this Court perhaps has escaped the notice of the learned trial Court or it has not been assisted properly on that line. In such situation, the judgment of the learned Full Bench will be more preferably applicable over the judgment of the learned D.B. Relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
11. In these circumstances, interference with the impugned order on the part of this Court has become necessary. The petition, therefore, is accepted and the impugned order to the above indicated extent of non-supply of the copies of the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation in the petitioner's defence is set aside and their petition for the purpose to that extent is accepted with the direction to the learned trial Court to supply them the copies of such statement of the witnesses and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.