ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---These revision applications are directed against the orders of same dated 29.6.2012 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sukkur, whereby applications under section 540, Cr.P.C. filed by applicant in Special cases Nos,60/1997, 61/1997, 106/1997, 43/2000 and 128/2000 for recalling the complainant and witnesses to further cross-examine them, were dismissed. As these revisions are arisen out of the orders passed are same facts with same observations and on the same date, therefore, these revisions are heard together and are being directed through this common order.
2. The background of these revision applications is that applicant is facing trial in the above- mentioned cases. After closing the prosecution side when the cases were fixed for statement of accused on 08.6.2012. Applicant sought time for about two months and thereafter moved an application under section 540 in all above cases for recalling complainant and witnesses for further cross-examination. The applications were rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned orders. The relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "The record reveals that formal charge against the accused was framed on 25.09.2000. The prosecution has examined all the PWs and closed the prosecution side on 19.4.2012. The matter was fixed for statement of accused under section 342, Cr. P. C. and since 21.4.2012, learned counsel for the accused from time to time got the case adjourned on one or other ground and on 08.6.2012 learned Counsel for the accused has filed application in hand with request that material witnesses i,e, complainant and witnesses may be recalled and re-examined. Learned counsel for the accused nowhere in the application disclosed reason for the summoning the complainant and witnesses for re-examination. Learned Counsel for the accused also has failed to disclose the names of witnesses to whom he wasn't to recall and reexamine. It is very surprising to note that learned Counsel for accused did not disclose that if he wants to recall and re-examine the witnesses in cross-examination or they also be called for examination-in-chief. The Court no doubt has power to call any person for examination as witness in the Court if his evidence is essential to administer Justice in the case. Learned counsel for the accused has failed to satisfy the Court just for which reason which witness may be summoned for recalling and re- examination. Even learned Counsel for the accused has failed to satisfy the Court that for what purpose complainant may be summoned and re-examine again.
Under these circumstances, since no reason for summoning the complainant and witnesses for re-examination has been shown, the application in hand merits no consideration, hence is rejected".
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned D.P.G. for the State and perused the record.
4. The main contention of learned applicants counsel is that, though the witnesses were cross- examined but some of the witnesses were cross-examined by the applicants/accused themself and important questions were inadvertently left to be asked to the witnesses, as such to meet the ends of justice, it is required that the witnesses already examined may be summoned for further cross-examination.
5. Learned D.P.G. has contended that full opportunity of cross-examination provided to the defence has already been availed. He has further contended that these applications have been moved just to prolong the matters, in fact there is no legal justification for moving of such application at this stage.
6. I have given patient hearing to the arguments advanced by the parties counsel. Perusal of record reveals that cases were challaned in 1997 and 2000. After taking cognizance, the trial court proceeded the cases. Prosecution produced evidence which took more than twelve years be to be completed on 19.4.2012. Of course, provision of section 540-A, Cr.P.C. gives unrestricted power to the court to call evidence at any stage, provided it is satisfied that it is essential for a just decision.
However, it is settled principle of law that discretionary powers should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice.
7. The defence moved instant applications for further cross-examination of the witnesses already examined after a period of a decade when the matter was, fixed for statement of accused. No legal justification is shown in the applications except that some important questions were left to be asked. It is an admitted position on record that defence counsel conducted cross-examination of the witnesses at length except P.Ws Ghulam Shabir and Mir Muhammad Shah (in Special Cases No,128 of 2000 and P.W. Changal Shah (in Special Case No,61 of 1997), so also P.W. Shabir Ahmed in (Special Case No,43 of 2000) who were cross-examined by the accused himself. Therefore, in the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in the cases wherein defence counsel has cross-examined the P.Ws and has already availed this opportunity in these cases, there is no reasonable ground and justification for exercising the powers under section 540, Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination as this would cause delay in disposal of cases.
Consequently, Revision Application Nos, S-47 and S-49 of 2012 are dismissed.
8. So far P.Ws cross-examined by applicant/accused himself is concerned, his ability to cross- examine the witnesses could not be equated or substituted as that of counsel. In case of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCM R 550) wherein it was held that where accused could not cross-examine the witness for any reason beyond his control or court has failed to discharge its duty in accordance with section 340, Cr.P.C. and Article 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat then accused may be given an opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. In the special cases Nos, 61 of 1997, 43 of 2000 and 128 of 2000 the learned trial court seems to have not discharged its duty while examining the P.Ws who were cross-examined by the accused, therefore, the Revision Applications No,46/2012, 48/2012 and 50/2012 are partly allowed to the extent of conducting further cross-examination of P.Ws Ghulam Shabir and Mir Muhammad Shah in Special Case No128 of 2000 and P.W. Changal Shah in Special Case No,61 of 1997 and PW Shabir Ahmed in Special Case No,43 of 2000 and partly to the extent of other witnesses are dismissed accordingly.