SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 2-11- 1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. There are two cross cases pending trial in the Court of Sessions at Okara. One has been initiated on a police challan and the other is based on a private complaint. This petition arises out of the trial of the first mentioned case. In this case respondents Nos. 2. 3 and 4 are the accused persons.
During the course of occurrence to which it relates three persons were killed and a number of persons including the petitioner were injured. The F.I.R. Was recorded at the instance of a son of one of the persons killed. The petitioner has appeared as a witness for the prosecution at the trial.
3. When all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined the petitioner moved an application before the Court that the statements which respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had made in the cross-case during the preliminary hearing of the complaint be permitted to be tendered in evidence. By an order dated 28-7-1986 the learned Sessions Judge rejected his application. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction in the High Court without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal in this Court.
4. It appears from the record that the application of the petitioner was not supported by the Public Prosecutor. Under section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor. That being so, the question as to what evidence the prosecution should adduce at the trial is one for the Public Prosecutor to decide. The petitioner's status at the trial was only that of a witness albeit an injured one. It was not open to him to move the Court to receive evidence which the Public Prosecutor did not wish to lead in support of the charges against the accused persons as it was tantamount to by passing the Public Prosecutor who under the law was incharge o the conduct of the case for the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly decided to reject the application of the petitioner. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.