' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Zahida Parveen petitioner/complainant of the case F.I.R. No, 85 of 2002, dated 1-11-2002 under sections 467/468/471/419/429/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur, through this revision petition under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C., has questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 3-2-2012, passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption whereby her application under section 540, Cr.P.C., for summoning of witnesses namely Pervez Iqbal Magistrate Section 30 and Director Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Lahore was dismissed.
2. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner lodged F.I.R. No,85 of 2002 against respondent No,3 and others with regard to preparation of forged power of attorney relating to her property. After submission of the challan under section 173, Cr.P.C.., charge was framed by the learned trial Court.
On 4-1-2012, petitioner lodged an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. To the learned trial Court for summoning of Mr. Pervez Iqbal Magistrate Section 30 and Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Lahore as witnesses on the grounds that during investigation sample papers were prepared by the Magistrate and sent to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Lahore and its report is part of judicial file but they both have not been cited as witnesses in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And that evidence of both the persons is necessary for fair conclusion of the trial. Petitioner's said application has been declined by the learned trial Court through the impugned order.
4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondents has referred a copy of Abtalnama (Cancellation Deed) No,4 dated 5-5-2010 wherein petitioner has acknowledged the execution of general power of attorney in favour of respondent No,3. It is obvious that when the executant cancelling her power of attorney has acknowledged its execution, the cancellation thereof would not affect validity or genuineness of cancelled power of attorney. Reliance is made upon Mst. Mussarat Ara Khanum v. Umaid Ali and others (PLD 1999 Quetta 36).
5. There is no cavil to the proposition that right of summoning a witness is a valuable statutory right and the Court has ample power in terms of section 540, Cr.P.C., to call any person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Object of this section is to defend the interest of justice and not to defeat the same. However, such a plea cannot be allowed to prolong the proceedings of trial. It is evident on the record that execution of power of attorney has been categorically admitted by the complainant. Therefore, there is no need to summon the said witnesses as it would amount to sheer wastage of precious time of the learned trial Court besides delay in disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to advance any good reason to revise the impugned order dated 3-2-2012 passed by learned trial Court.
6. For the above discussion and reasons, I am convinced that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while dismissing the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 3-2-2012 and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This Criminal Revision having no merit is dismissed.