SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J. - - The present petition contends for setting aside the order dated 16.3.1993, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, : while allowing the revision petition, had set aside the order dated 6.2,1993 passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court vide the said order dated 6.2.1993, had refused to order for the supply of statements of Shaukat Ali and Saif Ullah, recorded during the investigation of another case titled 'State Vs .Badar Dirt' while observing that the documents available in the police file of another case cannot be made a part of the case in question and that the accused can themselves obtain 'the copy of the statements/affidavits in question for confronting the PWs in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts of the ease are that respondents No.1 to 9 are facing trial in a case registered vide FIR No.132 dated 3.5.1989 under Sections 427/435/452/34 PPC at Police "Station Beghbanpura, Gujranwala. After the evidence of three prosecution witnesses had been recorded by the learned trial Court and after recording of the testimony of PWA, Saif Ullah, the learned counsel for respondents No. F to 9 refused to cross-examine him and instead moved an application for providing of the copy of the statement of the said PW.4 recorded in another case, registered vide FIR No. 106, dated 2.5.1989 registered at Police Station Garjakh, Gujranwala. The learned trial Court had dismissed the said miscellaneous application, vide order dated 6.2.1993, as stated above.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the other hand, had held as follows:- " Since the copies of the statements of one case recorded during the investigation can be brought on record for the purpose of confrontation in another case where such statements are necessary in order to contradict the witnesses or to shatter the veracity of the PWs. It is, therefore, in the interest of the justice and to provide fair chance to the petitioner, the revision is allowed with the direction that the trial Court would allow supply of copies as desired for the purpose of contradiction by the petitioner of the said PWs if re-called by the trial Court. Thus, the order dated 6.2.1993 is vacated accordingly and the parties are, however, directed to appear before the trial Court for the purpose of obtaining copies as prayed on 31.3.1993. The revision is allowed accordingly."
4. The learned counsel for the parties were heard at length in support of their respective contentions. The point for determination herein is to the effect whether or not the learned trial Court can direct for providing the copies of any statement made during the investigation of a case different than the one under trial of the accused therein.
5. In this respect, it may be pointed out, that according to Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (i.e.Section 145 of the old Evidence Act, 1872) a witness can be cross-examined as to previous statement made by him. For reference Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him."
However, as in the instant case, the statement whereby the PWs in question are to be confronted from a part of the police file in a different case, therefore, the concerned party has to move an application for summoning of the police file of the said case by the learned trial Court and thereafter has to submit another application for placing copies of the said statements on the record of the case under trial after duly exhibiting it in accordance with law; and furthermore, the police officer who had recorded the said statement has to be summoned in accordance with law to prove that he had recorded the said statements and only after the whole process stated above has been completed, the said statements, and confrontation thereby of the concerned PWs shall become admissible in accordance with law. Therefore, as the procedure stated above, had not been adopted on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 9 herein, the miscellaneous application filed on their behalf before the learned trial Court praying for the supply of the statements in question recorded in the zimnis' of the different case stated above, was rightly rejected, and as the said order dated 6.2.1993 did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, it did not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the order dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision petition preferred against the said order of the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the order dated 6.2.1993 passed by the learned trial Court stands restored.