1. ' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN BUTT, J.-- The above stated petition arise out of an order dated 25-11-2006 passed by District Criminal Court, Mirpur, whereby an objection raised by learned counsel was repelled.
2. ' Brief facts forming the background of instant petition are that a case under sections 302, 324, 341, A.P.C. Was registered on the pretext of an F.I.R. Lodged by Ummer Farooq, complainant, on 18-10- 1999 at 5-45 a.m. It was alleged that his brother Nadeem along with Khalid Mahmood and Nadeem sons of Muhammad Zaman, Khalid Mahmood son of Karam Ellahi and Azhar son of Nizam Din were proceeding towards their houses after receiving prizes of a cricket match. The complainant was also going behind them. When his brother along with other persons reached nearby the house of Ilyas, who was standing armed with .30 bore pistol raised a Lalkara that he will not let him go alive today and thereafter he started firing. Nadeem and his companions fled away in order to save their lives but Ilyas accused chased them and fired a straight shot at Nadeem which hit him upon his temple who fell down on the ground. Ilyas accused fled away from the place of occurrence while firing shots. Complainant's brother Nadeem succumbed to the injuries on the way to District Hospital. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant, Nadeem and Khalid Mahmood sons of Muhammad Zaman, Khalid Mahmood son of Karam Ellahi, Azhar son of Nizam Din and other people.
3. ' The motive behind the occurrence has been stated to be an altercation between accused and other boys. The accused often used to forbid the boys not to use the way in front of his house. On 17-10-1999, the accused threatened Nadeem son of Zaman and his brother Nadeem while taking out pistol not use the road in front of his house.
4. ' After necessary investigation, the accused-petitioner was sent to face trial before District Criminal Court, Mirpur in offences under sections 302, 324 and 341, A.P.C. During recording of the prosecution evidence, Muhammad Naseem D.S.P. Was given up by the prosecution vide order, dated 22-2- 2006. Thereafter, the accused-respondent filed an application on March 30, 2006 for summoning P.W.14 under section 540, Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Criminal Court while accepting the aforesaid application summoned P.W.14 as a Court-witness on 10-5-2006. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court and was maintained vide order, dated 21-10- 2006. In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the statement of Raja Muhammad Naseem Khan D.S.P. (P.W.14) was recorded as Court-witness on 25-11-2006. During the course of recording of his statement, the learned counsel for the prosecution raised an objection that the question about the filing of affidavits cannot be asked from the Court-witness which was repelled, hence this revision petition.
5. ' Raja Muhammad Shafique, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that the trial Court has committed an illegality while allowing the questions about the affidavits filed by some witnesses during investigation of the case. The learned counsel pointed out that the Court-witness has deposed before the Court against the facts mentioned in the police diaries by himself, therefore; his evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel also contended that the Court-witness is always presumed a witness for the prosecution, therefore, he cannot be allowed to testify against the prosecution version. The learned counsel finally submitted that the illegal proceedings of trial Court mentioned above be quashed and prosecution be allowed to cross-examine the Court-witness who has become hostile. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon1980 PCr.LJ 570.
6. ' Mr. Khalid Yousuf, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State fully owned the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. ' On the other side, M. Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent argued that during the course of evidence of Court-witness, the learned counsel for the prosecution raised an objection which was repelled by the trial Court, but petitioner did not file any revision petition against the aforementioned order, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel pointed out that the impugned objection was repelled on November 25, 2006, therefore, the present petition can also not be treated as revision petition because of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. The learned counsel maintained that the Court-witness Investigating Officer deposed before the trial Court that the affidavits produced by some persons- during the course of investigation are annexed with the record, therefore, the trial Court was quite empowered to allow the questions about the contents of the affidavits. The learned counsel defended the impugned order on all counts.
8. I have given my due consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care. It is celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence that even possessing wide and indefinable powers to do real justice and prevent abuse of process of the Court, it cannot override an express provision of law which means that the powers available to this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be exercised in respect of the matters which are covered directly by any specific provision of criminal procedure. In this manner, the Court cannot abstract or divert ordinary course of criminal procedure. Coming to the instant case, a specific procedure has been provided by section 25 of Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.L.) which postulates that any party aggrieved by an order of District Criminal Court can file a revision petition against the aforesaid order within a period of 60 days. The Legislature has provided a particular mode of action for an aggrieved party and has also prescribed a particular manner for redress of the grievance. In such-like circumstances, the Court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction to correct an error because an express provision is available in the procedure for appropriate and adequate relief. It will not be out of place B to mention here that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked in add where an expressed provision is available in the statute dealing with a particular subject. In this regard, reference can be made to a case .Reported as Khawaja Fazal Kareem v. The State and another PLD 1976 SC 461. Relevant portion of the report at page 465 is as under:-- "It is well-settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievances for which no other procedure is available and that the provision should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
9. Reference may be made in this regard to this Court's judgment in Ghulam Muhammad v.
10. Muzammal Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 SC 317. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another. It was observed in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others, "this Court had occasion to point out that the power given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute."
11. ' It was further observed in the case title Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others v. Amir Nawaz Khan and another 1996 SCM R 839 that normally every case should be allowed to proceed according to law and resort to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Should not be lightly made, as this would tend to circumvent the due process of law. The view taken in the aforementioned reports was affirmed in case titled Altaf Hussain v. Abdus Samad and 3 others 2000 SCM R 1945 in the following manner:-- "Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us that by quashing criminal proceedings against private respondents High Court acted against the settled norms and principles laid down by this Court for quashment of case. He relied upon Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan PLD 1967 SC 317 expressing the view that the inherent jurisdiction given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. This Court observed that the power given by this section can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute. This case has been followed in subsequent cases laying down the principles for quashment of proceedings in exercise of the powers conferred on the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Similar view was expressed in Fazal Karim v. State PLD 1976 SC 461, Mehmood Saeed v. Amir Nawaz Khan 1996 SCM R 839 and State v. Asif Ali Zardari 1994 SCM R 798."
12. ' The aforesaid view of the apex Court of Pakistan was also reiterated by the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the case reported as Sher Alam and another v. State and 3 others 1998 SCR 331 wherein the following" principle was enunciated at page 333 of the report:--- "As is well-settled that section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable where there is no specific provision. If another provision is available the Courts do not pass an order under section 561-A. This rule is inflexible and can be departed from if there are special circumstances in a particular case. Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made part of Code of Criminal Procedure to authorize a Magistrate to acquit an accused person at any stage if the charge is groundless. An application under this provision of law was moved by the accused persons on 27th January, 1992 but this application was rejected on 26th July, 1992. The proper course for the appellants was to press the aforesaid application or make a fresh application to the trial Court that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of the accused to be convicted and then the appellants could move the High Court in continuation thereof. The appellants have now moved the High Court but it was after five years which is not in continuation of the application under section 249-A."
13. A careful perusal of the above stated authorities make it crystal clear that when an express provision of law is available for redress of the grievance to any party, then inherent jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked as an alternative or additional jurisdiction.
14. ' It will be appropriate to note that under section 25(1), I.P.L. a revision petition against an order of District Criminal Court can be filed within a period of 60 days, therefore, I find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that after expiry of the period of limitation, the instant petition can be treated as revision petition. If for the sake of arguments, this petition is treated as revision petition, even then, I do not find, any infirmity or illegality in the. Impugned order of the trial Court. It is on the record that Muhammad Naseem Khan, D.S.P., (P.W. No,14) was given up by the prosecution vide order, dated February 22, 2006 and was later on summoned as Court- witness. Now the question arises as to whether a given up prosecution witness, if examined under section 540, Cr.P.C., can be confronted with his police statement. The answer is in affirmative that a given up prosecution witness, examined under section 540, Cr.P.C. Retains the character of a prosecution witness and during his examination under section 540, Cr.P.C., he can be confronted with his police statement in terms of section 162, Cr.P.C. 1980 PCr.LJ 570 (Lahore) (D.B.). The aforementioned authority, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, negates his own argument and supports the case of the respondent.
15. ' I am not inclined to pre-empt the function of the trial Court, therefore, refrain to make any comments which may injure the case of the either party but it will be pertinent to point out that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity while allowing the accused-respondent to cross-examine the Court-witness about the affidavits filed by some persons during the course of investigation especially when these affidavits were made part of the police record by the court- witness. It may be noticed that general diary which is an official register and the entries therein are made in discharge of official duties which if relevant concerning a fact in issue in a Court of law, can be used and brought on record under Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. 1990 PCr.LJ 1677 (Peshawar).
16. ' The analysis of the above discussion is that finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.