AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, C.J.---This Revision Petition has been filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, against the order dated 19-10-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, respondent No,2, whereby he dismissed application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by petitioner Abdullah for summoning Sub-Inspector Abdullah Ali Yousaf, DSP Asmatullah Khan Niazi, S.P Waseem Ahmad Khan and Sub- Inspector Akram Bajwa as court witnesses.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that a case was registered. at Police Station Shafiq Abad, Lahore under sections 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 337-J/379 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the basis of report lodged by complainant Mst. Rukhsana against the present petitioner. After completing the investigation the case was challaned and the same is pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the above named police officers as court witnesses, as according to him, the same were material witnesses. This application was dismissed on merits by the learned trial Judge on 19-10-2009, therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. Mr. M. Amir Latif Sehr Bhutta, Advocate for the petitioner argued that all these witnesses are material for just decision of the case and that Sub-Inspector Abdullah Ali Yousaf of Police Station Shafiq Abad, Lahore, had conducted the investigation and was present in the court when he was given up by the State counsel. According to him, the other police officers were also linked with the investigation, therefore, they should have also be summoned by the trial Court as court witnesses.
He relied on (i) 1988 MLD page 2435 (Lahore) titled Bashir Ahmad v. The State and (ii) 2004 PCr.LJ page 385 (Lahore) titled Muhammad Ashraf v. The State.
5. I have heard Mr. M. Amir Latif Sehr Bhutta, Advocate for petitioner and Rana Muhammad Iqbal, DPP for the State and have also gone through the entire record available before me.
6. As far as Sub-Inspector Abdullah Ali Yousaf is concerned, he had admittedly conducted some investigation and was shown as prosecution witness. He was also present ' the purpose of recording his evidence but he was given up by t State counsel, therefore, in my humble view his evidence is material for the just decision of the case. The trial court should have called him as court witness. As far as the other three witnesses are concerned, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had also conducted any investigation and had recorded the statement of any witnesses, etc., therefore, the trial court had rightly decline the request of the petitioner to call them as court witnesses. The -petitioner may call them as his witnesses in his defence, if so advised, at proper stage.
7. With the above observations, the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent of calling Sub- Inspector Abdullah Ali Yousaf as court witness.