ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 1-2-1986, dismissing their Criminal Revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, Khanewal.
2. The petition has arisen out of a matter relating inter alia, to the murder of Munir Ahmad (deceased). In that case the deceased was murdered and his maternal-cousin Muhammad Aslam P.W. Was injured. An F.I.R. Was lodged by Nazir Ahmad and three successive investigations were held in the matter by the police. The last investigation was made by a D.S.P., who found Farooq and Ashraf, accused, to be innocent and submitted the final challan placing them in column No.2 thereof, while Abdur Rahman accused and one Ayub (who was not named by the complainant in the F.I.R.) were placed in column No.3. Nazir Ahmad complainant thereupon filed a private complaint against Farooq, Ashraf and Abdur Rehman accused.
Both the cases i.e. The police case and the private complaint are being tried together by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the procedure laid down by this Court in the case of Noor Elahi v. Ikramullah PLD 1966 SC 708 trial of the private complaint was taken up first. After examining complainants P.Ws. The counsel for the complainant (petitioner before us) made an application that all the witnesses, whose statements had been recorded by the police in the three investigations held by it, should also be summoned as Court witnesses in the complaint case. The learned trial Court, however, rejected this application by its order dated 1-12-1985.
Against this order the petitioners went to the High Court through a criminal revision which was dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioners have now come up to this Court for grant of leave to appeal.
3. We have gone through the judgments of all the Courts below and heard the petitioner counsel at some length. We are of the view that the learned Courts below have correctly followed the procedure laid down by this Court for the trial of such cases in the case of Noor Elahi v. Ikramullah (supra), and have also rightly rejected the petitioners' prayer for summoning all the witnesses examined by the police as Court witnesses. Moreover, the trial Court is not required to summon, as witnesses in the private complaint, all the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the police during the investigation but only those which the prosecution intended to produce in support of its own case based on the final report under section 173. Cr.P.C. However, if so advised, the petitioner can summon such other witnesses through the Court, as defence witnesses. With the above observations the petition is dismissed as having no merit.