{{PAGE CUTTING}} ' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of it appeal filed under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic :ances Act, 1997, the appellants have called in question the vires of gned order dated 29-11-2010, passed by learned Judge Special CNS, Faisalabad; whereby application filed by the appellants section 540, Cr.P.C. Seeking summoning of certain persons as witnesses, was declined.
' Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the appeal in , are that Kashif alias Shahid alias Chachi, Malik Yaseen and immad Azam, appellants, were booked in case F.I.R. No,33, under section 9(c)/15 of the Control of Narcotic. Substances Act, , registered on 30-12-2009. After adopting all codal formalities, the t under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted and the learned trial recorded evidence of the prosecution and the case was adjourned cording the statements of the accused/appellants under section 342, :C. When an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Was moved on behalf seeking summoning of (i) Dr. Javed Iqbal, Medical Officer, Hospital, Faisalabad, (ii) SSP Motorway M-2 North,
(iii) Abdul -tan Patrolling Officer, (iv) Muhammad Baqir Shah Patrolling er, (v) Liaquat Driver/Assistant Patrolling Officer, (vi) Mobushar ain Senior Patrolling Officer, (vii) S.H.O., Police Station Naulakha, re, (viii) Incharge Ward AXE Department, (ix) Editor Daily ss and (x) Editor Daily Jang, as court witnesses. The learned trial in terms of order dated 29-11-2010, dismissed the application, ver, summoned Dr. Javed Khalid, Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, labad along with Incharge Ward. The order dated 29-11-2010, has assailed by the appellants by means of instant appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned dated 29-11-2010; whereby request of the appellants qua noning of certain persons as court witnesses was declined, is not .Nable in the eyes of law, which has been passed in utter disregard settled law on the subject and pronouncements of the superior s of the country. It is also argued that the learned Judge, Special CNS, Faisalabad, fell in error while dismissing the application theless it has been the prosecution case that the accused/appellants arrested at Salam Interchange in presence of Motorway Police Vials. Similarly, learned counsel next submits that on the application sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C.
Filed by Mst. Zareena Bibi, mother pellants Nos.1 and 2, S.H.O., Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, filing reply/police report, admitted that he had received information on wireless that ANF Faisalabad, had conducted raid 1 the house of the appellants. In this peculiar scenario, learned cot urges, declining the request of the appellants for summoning t persons as court witnesses, is against the law and the learned trial failed to exercise its judicial powers in accordance with norm criminal justice. Learned counsel next argues that fundamental prim of administration of justice is that the courts are bound to apply the correctly and to justly administer the rights and remedies of citizens. Next-argued on behalf of the appellants that as per section 540, Cr. The court has been vested with unlimited powers to summon the per as witnesses, necessary to arrive at just conclusion, as is in case in hand. In the end prayer for setting aside the impugned dated 29-11-2010 has been made.
4. As against above, learned Special Prosecutor ANF has opp, the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants with averments that nevertheless it is the duty of the court to summon per as witnesses to arrive at just conclusion as enshrined in section Cr.P.C, however, firstly provisions of section supra are not manda in nature and secondly nobody can be given unconditional right to summon the witness of his own choice as court witness. It is next that if the appellants are very much interested in the evidence of witnesses named in the application, they may produce them as deft witnesses, as has been rightly observed by the learned trial court. Next contended that the impugned order dated 29-11-2010 of the lea] trial court has been passed keeping in view the law on the subject any exception can be made to the same.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the argum advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as lea] Special Prosecutor ANF and have gone through the record with t assistance.
6. There is no denial to the fact that solitary purpose of judicial proceedings in criminal cases is to find, out the truth and to arrive correct conclusion and to see that no innocent person is punisl Section 540, Cr.P.C. Deals with power of the court qua summonin, witnesses. It would be advantageous to reproduce the section su which reads as under:- "540. Power to summon material witness or examine per present. ---Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, tri other proceeding under this Code, summon any person witness, or examine any person in attendance, though summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any pet already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case." dly when court is satisfied that evidence of the witnesses d by the prosecution is sufficient to arrive at just conclusion, no compulsion for summoning of any other witness. Perusal of 2d order dated 29-11-2010, passed by the learned trial court that in addition to evidence already recorded, Dr. Javaid Khalid od, Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad and Incharge 'ere the necessary witnesses to be recorded. Prima facie, the other es prayed for to be summoned in the application rejected through impugned order under challenge i.e, (i) SSP Motorway M-2 North, Abdul Rehman Patrolling Officer, (iii) Muhammad Baqir Shah Patrolling Officer, (iv) Liaquat Driver/Assistant Patrolling Officer, (v) aar Hussain Senior Patrolling Officer, (vi) SHO, Police Station ha, Lahort, (vii)
Incharge Ward AXE Department, (viii) Editor 3xpress and (ix) Editor Daily Jang, would be examined in defence. Appellants are interested in their evidence then as has been rightly ed by the learned trial court, they are at liberty to ask the court permission to produce them as defence witnesses.
Having seen pugned order passed by the learned trial court from every angle, touchstone of relevant law on the subject, we see no infirmity in me. The instant appeal is devoid of legal justification, which is ingly dismissed. Before parting with this judgment we may observe here that the ants would be at liberty to avail the opportunity of producing the aid persons in defence to supplement defence version, if so. {{PAGE CUTTING}}