' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Through the instant criminal revision application, the applicant has called in question order dated 1-11-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushero Feroze, declining the request of applicant/complainant to put the question proposed by the complainant to the accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The proposed question reads as under:- "Whether the fire shot made by the accused Ghulam Sarwar upon PW. Muhammad Saleh, who received Danda injury by accused Bashir Ahmed and fallen down and the fire shot of accused Ghualm Sarwar was hit to his own companion i,e, accused Bashir Ahmed Buller"?
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the proposed question sought to be put was the part of the prosecution evidence recorded by the trial Court, however, while recording the examination of accused the proposed important question was not put from them which is against the object of examination of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further contended that the observation of the trial Court bears no legal force that the criminal case is to be proceeded through the State Counsel and private counsel engaged by the complainant has no locus standi to move application independently before the Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon 2004 YLR 3342, 1994 PCr.LJ 181 and 2001 PCr.LJ 524. He has further contended that the proposed question was very much essential to confront accused with incrimination piece of evidence if the proposed question is not allowed the case may be remanded in appeal.
3. Learned APG has opposed the application and has contended that it is to be seen by the trial Court that which question is essential to be put to the accused while recording his examination under section 342, Cr:P.C. The trial Court is not supposed to record statement of accused under section 342, Cr:P.C. Under the dictation of the complainant. Learned APG has referred to section 342, Cr.P.C. The relevant para. Reads as under:- "342. Power to examine the accused.---(1) For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of any inquiry or trial without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall for the purpose aforesaid question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence."
4. It appears from the submissions made by the learned defence counsel, so also State Counsel, that the application for adding the proposed question in statement of accused recorded under section 342, A Cr.P.C. Was moved without the consent of Public Prosecutor by the counsel engaged by the complainant, who in terms of section 493, Cr.P.C. Is incharge of case and any private counsel engaged could only assist the Prosecutor thus filing of application, bypassing the authority of B Public Prosecutor was against spirit of section 493, Cr.P.C. The impugned order reveals that ADPP appearing for the State has opposed the adding of proposed question in the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. On the ground that if such question is allowed, the prosecution case may be damaged.
5. Bare perusal of section 342, Cr.P.C. Reveals that it is for the trial Court to put such question while examining the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Which the trial Court may consider necessary, the question proposed by the complainant can not be put to the accused, if the trial Court considers the said proposed question is unnecessary. The wisdom of, legislator behind above proposition that the trial Court has to dispense with the justice without favour to eihter party by a fair trial and for a just and proper decision of case, gives notice to accused of points emerging from the prosecution evidence, enabling him to explain himself, whereas the private counsel engaged by the complainant obviously would promote the case of his client, while preparing the question to be put to accused, paramount consideration before him would be to safeguard interests of his client.
6. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has also considered the question proposed, discussed all the legal aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that the question put up from the accused during his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Covers the proposed question of complainant as such there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as such, there will be no wisdom to call for interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The criminal revision application is dismissed.