' Through this petition Abdul Razzaq seeks setting aside of order dated 22.9.2015 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, D.G.Khan whereby an application filed by him under Section 540 Cr.P.C, was disposed of in the light of order dated 30.3.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No, 2559 of 2015.
2. Petitioner is facing trial on the charge of murder as well as abduction for ransom. The main grievance of the petitioner urged through this Constitutional petition is that application moved by him under Section 540, Cr.P.C. Was allowed while deciding Writ Petition No, 2559 of 2015 and Writ Petition No, 10465 of 2015 but learned trial Court has not proceeded in the matter in the light of orders passed by this Court.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record has revealed that during trial petitioner who is facing charges under Sections 302, 365-A, PPC moved an application (Annexure-F) stating that version.PW-2 Zafar Iqbal that he had seen the deceased in the company of petitioner-accused was false as at the relevant time his location in Faisalabad was not supported by CDR, hence, summoning of relevant data of cell numbers mentioned in the petition was essential in order to ascertain as to whether version of PW-2 Zafar Iqbal was true or otherwise. On dismissal of his application he filed Writ Petition No, 2559 of 2015 which came up for hearing on 30.3.2015 before this Court. The same was allowed and order passed by learned trial Court dated 18.2.2015 was set aside and petition moved under Section 540, Cr.P.C.
Was accepted. Thereafter learned trial Court summoned two witnesses with recbrd who were examined as CW-1 and CW-2. Statement of CW-1 Tanvir Ali, Area Sales Head, Telenor Company, Multan is available on record as Annexure-O whereas statement of CW-2 Muhammad Ahmad, Zonal Manager (Customer-Care) is Annexure-P. Both the witnesses were summoned by the trial Court who were also cross-examined by the defence. In the impugned order learned trial Court has explained that in Writ Petition No, 10465 of 2015 recording of statements of CWs was not referred to by the counsel.
5. After going through material available on record it has been noticed that above mentioned, witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded in the light of application submitted by present petitioner. Record in this case further shows that evidence has already been recorded and case is ripe for final disposals. In criminal case it is duty of the prosecution to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and it is not for the accused to prove his innocence.
Application moved by the petitioner was allowed by this Court and in compliance thereof learned trial Court recorded-statements of two witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the defence.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that order passed by this Court was not complied with is not convincing nor in line with the material available on record.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
Resultantly, this petition fails is hereby dismissed in limine.