MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioners seek revision of the order dated 29.7.93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby their application for summoning Mst. Robina, the alleged abductee as a court witness u/s 540 of the Cr.P.C, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners' learned counsel submits that the trial court had ample authority u/s 540 of the Cr.P.C, to summon any person and re-examined him though already examined. He further submits that where re-examination of a witness appears to be essential for a just decision of the case then it is mandatory to recall him. According to him the impugned order is arbitrary and shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioners both of whom are happily living as husband and wife and have been blessed with a child. The learned State counsel agreed that the trial court had powers to re- examine a witness though already examined and did not oppose the prayer made in the revision petition; However, the learned counsel for the complainant seriously opposed the revision petition and urged that some important facts have been suppressed which have a direct bearing on the case. He pointed out that Mst. Robina, the abductee was examined in the trial Court as PW.6 on 22.4.92 and she fully supported the prosecution case. Thereafter, Liaquat Ali petitioner re-abducted her on 15.11.92 whereupon another case was registered against him vide FIR No. 625/92. He added that the application for re-examining the abductee was mala fide and was rightly dismissed by the trial court. He further submitted that Mst. Robina was originally abducted by Liaquat Ali petitioner No. 1 in June, 1991 and after recovery, her statement was recorded by a Magistrate on 11.8.91 in which she fully supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the alleged Nikah of the petitioners said to have been performed on 6.8.91 does not absolve petitioner No. 1 of his criminal liability. Lastly he submitted that the accused/petitioner No. 1 may apply to the Court for examining Mst. Robina as a defence witness. In reply the petitioners' learned counsel pointed out that as regards second case of abduction, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 11613/92 for quash ment of the FIR which was dismissed on 31.10.93 with the observation that the petitioners could apply to the trial Court for acquittal u/s 265-K of the Cr.P.C.
3. There is considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. The fact that Mst. Robina was re-abducted and another criminal case was registered against Liaquat Ali petitioner No. 1 has not been mentioned in the revision petition. This per-se is sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to the discretionary relief u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. The abductee had once made a statement against Liaquat Ali petitioner No. 1 on 11.8.91 when she was examined by a Magistrate u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. The said Magistrate appeared before the trial Court as PW.12 and proved that the statement of the abductee was recorded by him in the presence of Liaqat Ali petitioner No. 1 who was even given an opportunity to cross-examine her. Thereafter, the abductee made a detailed statement before the trial court as PW.6 and fully supported the prosecution case. It appears that Liaquat Ali petitioner No. 1 anticipated his conviction for an offence u/s 11 of the Ordinance VII of 1979 and re-abducted Mst. Robina whereupon the second criminal case was registered against him vide FIR 625/92. The application for examining Mst. Robina as a Court witness u/s 540 of the Cr.P.C, smacks of mala fides. The prayer for her re-examination does not appear to be essential for a just decision of the case, rather it would promote the interests of an accused who, prima facie, has taken the law in his own hands, re-abducted the most important prosecution witness and presumably succeeded to win her over. The mere fact hat the petitioners have got a baby is hardly sufficient to entitle them to any indulgence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.