ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- After having remained a Proclaimed Offender for many years in the present State case the petitioner was arrested and is now being tried by the learned Additional Session Judge-III, Khushab. The petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Court seeking requisitioning of the record of the connected complaint case which record is presently lying with this Court in connection with an appeal filed by some convicts in the said complaint case. That application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order dated 28-11-2006. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the record of the connected complaint case was necessary for a just decision of the State case against the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab was not justified in dismissing the above-mentioned application of the petitioner.
3. The interim order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab on 21-11-2006 (a copy whereof is available at pages Nos.12/13 of the present petition) shows that the statements of the prosecution witnecces recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have already been supplied to the petitioner under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner's trial is now ready for commencement.
The impugned order dated 28-11-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab highlights that the record of the State case being faced by the petitioner is self-contained and thus, no need was felt by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab for requisitioning of the record of the connected complaint case from this Court.
4. Apparently the petitioner fails to understand and appreciate that a State case and a complaint case are totally independent of each other and they proceed on the basis of their own records. It is settled law that the record or evidence of one case/trial cannot be read in another case/trial. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Khushi Muhammad alias Natho v. The State PLD 1986 SC 146, Akbar Ali v. Qazi Javed Ahmad and others 1986 SCM R 2018, Ali Sher v. The State PLD 1987 Kar. 507 and Malik Aman v. Haji Muhammad Tufail PLD 1976 Lah.
1446.
5. For what has been discussed above the present revision petition has been found by me to be diabolically misconceived and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine.