1. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner with another is facing trial for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C The case is being tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Shcikhupura, who recorded the statement of one Mst. Mehraj Bibi as P.W.6 on 17-4-1990. The accused on the same day moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Requesting that said Mst. Mehraj Bibi be re-summoned as the learned counsel for the accused inadvertently could not confront the said witness with an affidavit which was sworn by her earlier. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 26-11-1990.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be gravely prejudiced if Mst. Mchraj Bibi is not re-summoned. Submits that it is not the intention of the petitioner to delay the trial. The learned counsel conducting the trial inadvertently failed to confront the witness with her affidavit and, in such circumstances, the case of petitioner would be prejudiced without any fault of his. The petition,, has been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. Under section 540, Cr.P.C.
3. The Courts have vast powers to order the recommending of a witness to secure the ends of justice.
4. If a witness has made a statement earlier, which can throw some light and enable the Court in arriving at a just decision, order under section 540, Cr.P.C. Can be made. I have noticed that the day Mst. Mehraj Bibi was examined, immediately thereafter on the same day, application was also moved. In such circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the intention of the petitioner is not to delay the proceedings. Therefore; while relying upon Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad lqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95, I allow the petition.